Background: Modification of surgical techniques to minimize wound infections in penile implant surgery using malleable prosthesis which is easy to use, of very low risk of mechanical failure and is financially suitable to improve outcome and ensures less complications. The aim of the study is to compare infrapubic approach and Penoscrotal approach in penile semi-rigid prosthesis implantation surgery. Patients and methods: Fifty patients were randomly divided into two groups and each group underwent one approach. Results: No statically significant differences were found between both groups in terms of operative time. Corporeal cross over was the most common intraoperative complications, 3 cases in IP approach and 6 cases in PS but not statistically significant. Peyronie's disease patients underwent penile implant through infrapubic approach in 3 cases and PS in 4 cases with one recorded complication of keloid formations with IP. Urethral false passage reported only in one case with PS approach without affecting the procedure. Only minor complications including superficial wound infection which was significantly more with PS, 6/25 (24%) and IP 1/25 (4%), p value = 0.041. Penile and scrotal edema was common with IP approach (92%) in comparison with PS approach (60%). The urethral catheter can be abandoned with IP to avoid the risk of catheterizations. No significant relation between diabetes and infections and no erosions were encountered. Conclusion: Through this research work, infrapubic approach is better than Penoscrotal approach even if it is not commonly used by surgeon.
Background: Medical treatment accomplished good results in the treatment of erectile dysfunction (ED). However, these results were temporary, whereby approximately 80% of the patients experienced drop out. Penile prosthesis insertion is an outstanding treatment for patients with ED who are refectory to medical treatment or those who desired to leave off pharmacotherapy to gain lasting treatment.Objectives: To assess the safety, efficacy, and sexual and psychological satisfaction among patients with ED who were subjected to subcoronal or infrapubic penile prosthesis implantation. Patients and Methods:The present study was a prospective case-control study that was carried out at Al-Azhar University Hospitals through the entire period of 2016 to 2020. Men with ED that did not respond to medical treatment and had vasculogenic impotence based on penile duplex were included in the study. All patients were submitted to clinical evaluation comprised of detailed sexual and urological history, and physical evaluation. All patients were subjected to frequent follow-up assessment visits for six months after the surgery.Results: This study included a total of 18 patients with ED. Out of them, 9 (50%) patients were subjected to the infrapubic approach, while 9 (50%) patients were treated with the subcoronal approach. Three months postoperatively, all men revealed an average penile length at maximum inflation of 13.4 cm (9.3-17.5 cm). This status was continued for six months in which no patient lost his penile length. Among patients treated with the subcoronal approach, one patient developed penile extrusion one and half months post-operatively due to wound dehiscence secondary to uncontrolled DM. As for the infrapubic group, a patient developed superficial infection and wound dehiscence and responded to antibiotic use and secondary suturing. Another case developed a hypertrophic scar. Conclusion:Erectile dysfunction can be safely and effectively treated by implantation of the penile prosthesis by the subcoronal approach. This approach achieved high satisfactory functional, aesthetic, and psychological outcomes relative to the infrapubic approach.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.