Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Plication corporoplasty for congenital penile curvature: our results with long-term follow-up

  • Urology - Original Paper
  • Published:
International Urology and Nephrology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective

To evaluate the outcome of the long-term follow-up in patients who underwent corporoplasty-straightening treatment for congenital penile curvature (CPC).

Methods

Between 1989 and 2012, a total of 60 patients underwent corporoplasty-straightening surgery using penile plication for CPC. We followed up on all the correction of the curvature; (a) any penile shortening; (b) sexual function; (c) complications.

Results

The mean follow-up period was of 98 months. Complete correction of the curvature was obtained in 54 patients (90 %). Shortening of the penis (1.5 to not more than 3 cm) occurred in 16 patients (26.6 %). All patients had good erectile function (IIEF-5 > 21). The most frequent complication was the sensitivity reduction of the glans in five patients (8.3 %), which was resolved with in about a year after surgery (mean 11 months) and the shortening of the penis in 16 patients (26.6 %), which, however, did not result in problems during sexual intercourse.

Conclusions

Corporoplasty using penile straightening plication is a safe procedure whose results are maintained even after many years after surgery. It is a procedure that can be applied to any type of curvature. Any reduction in the length of the penis, as a result of the surgery procedure, does not lead to difficulties in sexual intercourse.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Kramer S, Aydin G, Kelalis P (1982) Chordee without hypospadias in children. J Urol 128:559–561

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Devine CJ Jr, Horton CE (1973) Chordee without hypospadias. J Urol 110:264–271

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Devine CJ Jr, Blackley SK, Horton CE, Gilbert DA (1991) The surgical treatment of chordee without hypospadias in men. J Urol 146:325–329

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Donnahoo KK, Cain MP, Pope JC, Casale AJ, Keating MA, Adams MC, Rink RC (1998) Etiology, management and surgical complications of congenital chordee without hypospadias. J Urol 160:1120–1122

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Nesbit RM (1965) Congenital curvature of the phallus: report of three cases with description of corrective operation. J Urol 93:230–232

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Lue TF, El-Sakka AI (1998) Venous patch graft for Peyronie’s disease. Part I: technique. J Urol 160:2047–2049

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Devine CJ, Horton CE (1974) Surgical treatment of Peyronie’s disease with a dermal graft. J Urol 111:44–49

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Das S (1980) Peyronie’s disease: excision and autografting with tunica vaginalis. J Urol 124:818–819

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Gelbard MK, Hayden B (1991) Expanding contractures of the tunica albuginea due to Peyronie’s disease with temporalis fascia free grafts. J Urol 145:772–776

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Lowe DH, Ho PC, Parsons CL, Schmidt JD (1982) Surgical treatment of Peyronie’s disease with Dacron graft. Urology 19:609–610

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Pryor J, Fitzpatrick J (1979) A new approach to the correction on the penile deformity in Peyronie’s disease. J Urol 122:622–623

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Sassine AM, Wespes E, Schulman CC (1994) Modified corporoplasty for penile curvature: 10 years’ experience. Urology 44:419–421

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Brake M, Keller H, Lamade F, Groh R, Horsch R (1999) Surgical correction of penile deviation: Nesbit vs Schroeder–Essed method. Urology 38:264–269

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Essed E, Schroeder F (1985) New surgical treatment for Peyronie disease. Urology 25:582–587

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Ebbehoj J, Metz P (1985) New operation for ‘‘krummerik’’ (penile curvature). Urology 26:76–78

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Donatucci CF, Lue TF (1992) Correction of penile deformity assisted by intracavernous injection of papaverine. J Urol 141:1108–1110

    Google Scholar 

  17. Kadioglu A, Akman T, Sanli O, Gurkan L, Cakan M, Celtik M (2006) Surgical treatment of Peyronie’s disease: a critical analysis. Eur Urol 50:235–248

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Levine LA, Lenting EL (1997) A surgical algorithm for the treatment of Peyronie’s disease. J Urol 158:2149–2152

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Baskin LS, Erol A, Li YW, Cunha GR (1998) Anatomical studies of hypospadias. J Urol 160:1108–1115

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Baskin LS, Erol A, Li YW, Liu W (2000) Anatomy of the neurovascular bundle: Is safe mobilization possible? J Urol 164:977–980

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Savoca G, Scieri F, Pietropaolo F, Garaffa G, Belgrano E (2004) Straightening corporoplasty for Peyronie’s disease: a review of 218 patients with median follow-up of 89 months. Eur Urol 46:610–614

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Ralph DJ, al-Akraa M, Pryor JP (1995) The Nesbit operation for Peyronie’s disease: 16-year experience. J Urol 4:1362–1363

    Google Scholar 

  23. Van Der Horst C, Martinez Portillo FJ, Melchior D, Bross S, Alken P, Juenemann KP (2003) Polytetrafluoroethylene versus polypropylene sutures for Essed-Schröder tunical plication. J Urol 170:472–475

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Leonardo C, De Nunzio C, Michetti P, Tartaglia N, Tubaro A, De Dominicis C et al (2012) Plication corporoplasty versus Nesbit operation for the correction of congenital penile curvature. A long-term follow-up. Int Urol Nephrol 44:55–60

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Baskin LS, Lue TF (1998) The correction of congenital penile curvature in young men. Br J Urol 81:895–899

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Gholami SS, Lue TF (2002) Correction of penile curvature using the 16-dot plication technique: a review of 132 patients. J Urol 167:2066–2069

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Syed AH, Abbasi Z, Hargreave TB (2003) Nesbit procedure for disabling Peyronie’s curvature: a median follow-up of 84 months. Urology 60:999–1003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Claes R, Baert L (1995) Corporeal plication in Peyronie’s disease improves rigidity. Int J Impot Res 7:119–122

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. O’Donnell PD (1992) Results of surgical management of Peyronie’s disease. J Urol 148:1184–1187

  30. Tal R, Nabulsi O, Nelson CJ, Mulhall JP (2010) The psychosocial impact of penile reconstructive surgery for congenital penile deviation. J Sex Med 7:121–128

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Akkus E, Ozkara H, Alici B, Demirkesen O, Akaydin A, Hattat H et al (2001) Incision and venous patch graft in the surgical treatment of penile curvature in Peyronie’s disease. Eur Urol 40:531–536

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Levine LA, Estrada CR (2003) Human cadaveric pericardial graft for the surgical correction of Peyronie’s disease. J Urol 170:2359–2362

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Adeniyi AA, Goorney SR, Pryor JP, Ralph DJ (2002) The Lue procedure: an analysis of the outcome in Peyronie’s disease. BJU Int 89:404–408

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that no financial interests and conflict of interest exist in relation to the work describe.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Urology, A.O. Ospedali Riuniti di Ancona, Via Conca 71, 60020, Ancona, Italy

    Ubaldo Cantoro

  2. Chief Department of Uro-Andrology, Institute of Urology, Polytechnic University of Marche, A.O. Ospedali Riuniti di Ancona, Ancona, Italy

    Massimo Polito

  3. Faculty of Medicine, Institute of Urology, Polytechnic University of Marche, A.O. Ospedali Riuniti di Ancona, Ancona, Italy

    Vito Lacetera

  4. Chief Department of Urology, Faculty of Medicine, Institute of Urology, Polytechnic University of Marche, A.O. Ospedali Riuniti di Ancona, Ancona, Italy

    Giovanni Muzzonigro

Authors
  1. Ubaldo Cantoro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Massimo Polito
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Vito Lacetera
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Giovanni Muzzonigro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ubaldo Cantoro.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Cantoro, U., Polito, M., Lacetera, V. et al. Plication corporoplasty for congenital penile curvature: our results with long-term follow-up. Int Urol Nephrol 46, 1741–1746 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11255-014-0728-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11255-014-0728-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation