Plication for Correction of Congenital Penile Curvature: With or Without Degloving?
Academic Article
Overview
abstract
INTRODUCTION: Previously, incisionless plication (IP) for correction of congenital penile curvature (CPC) has been performed after penile degloving via a circumscribing incision. AIM: To describe our experience with non-degloving incisionless penile plication (NDIP) for correction of CPC and compare these outcomes with those of men who underwent degloving incisionless penile plication (DIP). METHODS: We conducted a retrospective review of men ≤ 45 years of age who underwent incisionless penile plication for correction of CPC between 2008 and 2020 at two adult tertiary hospitals. Patients underwent either NDIP, performed through a 2-3 cm longitudinal incision along the proximal-to-mid shaft opposite the point of maximum penile curvature, or DIP via a sub-coronal circumscribing incision. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Surgical and patient-reported outcomes were compared between the non-degloving and degloving groups. RESULTS: Among the 38 men (mean age, 26 years) who met the inclusion criteria, 25 underwent NDIP, including 6 patients with biplanar curvature (2 Ventral, 4 Dorsal, 6 Lateral). Thirteen patients underwent DIP, including 1 patient with biplanar curvature (1 ventral, 1 lateral). Curvature reduction was 50 ± 23 degrees for the NDIP group and 36 ± 10 degrees for the DIP group (P = .04). Five (20%) patients in the NDIP group and nine (69%) patients in the DIP group experienced a reduction in stretched penile length following plication (SPL) (P = .01). One patient in the NDIP group underwent an additional plication for recurrent curvature. CONCLUSION: Both NDIP and DIP are safe and highly efficacious techniques for the correction of CPC. Kusin SB, Khouri RK, Dropkin BM, et al., Plication for Correction of Congenital Penile Curvature: With or Without Degloving?. Sex Med 2021;9:100462.
