Banner

PENILE IMPLANT DOES NOT REDUCE PENILE LENGTH

J UROLOGY • 2019
العودة
معلومات البحث
المؤلفون MOHAMAD HABOUS , OSAMA ABDELWAHAB , DAVID RALPH , SIMONE GIONA , OSAMA LABAN , SALEH BINSALEH , GORDON MUIR , and JOHN MULHALL
الكلمات المفتاحية Not Available
المجلة العلمية J UROLOGY
الناشر Not Available
المجلد Not Available
العدد Not Available
الصفحات Not Available
publication.type Local
رابط البحث Open Link
المواد المرفقة Not Available
الملخص
INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES
A common cause of patient dissatisfaction after penile implant (PI) surgery is penile shortening. This prospective study aimed to investigate penile size measured preoperatively and postoperatively.

METHODS
Consecutive patients undergoing PI surgery were assessed over a 1-year period. Standardised measurements of stretched flaccid penile length (SFPL) were performed under anaesthesia preoperatively then re-measured at the end of the procedure with the penis in the erect position. Measurement was done by a single evaluator and was measured as follow: penile length from the supra-pubic skin to distal glans (skin-to-tip), and girth was measured with tape around the base of penis. Size data was recorded to the nearest five millimetres. We recorded type of penile implant and size and data on body mass index (BMI), hypertension, HbA1c and Peyronie’s disease (PD). SPSS software was used for statistical analysis. Paired T-test to verify statistical difference in Length and Girth Pre-and Post-surgery. Cross-taps to assess correlation between Length/Girth and other variables.

RESULTS
133 patients were included. 66% had malleable implant (MP), 34% inflatable implant (IP). Median age and BMI were 56 years and 30 respectively. 30% patients had hypertension and 28% had PD. 67% were diabetic. Mean pre-implant SFPL was 12.8±1.8 cm. Postoperative mean erect length 13.1±1.7 cm. Overall, there was a significant minor increase in length +0.36±0.63 cm. Patients who had IP, had a more significant increase in length 0.62±0.72 cm compared to MP 0.22±0.53 (p