Comparative analysis of two surgical techniques for the treatment of Peyronie’s disease

Kurashov D.V., Zurnadzhyants V.A., Kchibekov E.A., Proskurin A.A.

1) Astrakhan State Medical University, Astrakhan, Russia; 2) Euromedprestizh Multidisciplinary Clinic, Moscow, Russia; 3) City Clinical Hospital No. 3 named after S.M. Kirov, Astrakhan, Russia

Aim. To evaluate the outcomes of two surgical techniques for Peyronie’s disease.
Materials and methods. A total of 43 patients with Peyronie’s disease who underwent surgical treatment using two different techniques were included in the study. Patient age ranged from 22 to 64 years; mean age was 50.6±0.8 years. Surgical treatment was performed in patients with a plaque size >1.5 cm and a penile curvature angle >45° (mean curvature 54.6±0.7°). Mean disease duration was 30±0.4 months. According to the surgical technique selected, patients were divided into two groups. Group 1 included 24 patients who underwent penile plaque plication. Group 2 included 19 patients who underwent a shortening technique without incision of the tunica albuginea (Patent No. 2728973 dated 03.08.20).
Results. In all patients, the postoperative period was uncomplicated. Spontaneous erections occurred on postoperative days 1–3. Patients in Group 1 were discharged on postoperative days 3–5 (mean length of stay 2.7±0.5 days), whereas patients in Group 2 were discharged on postoperative days 2–3 (mean length of stay 2.6±0.5 days) in satisfactory condition and were advised to follow up with their local urologist. Sexual abstinence for 1.5–2 months was recommended. In both groups, erectile dysfunction and pain syndrome were absent, and all patients reported satisfaction with the surgical outcome. In Group 2, penile shortening during erection by 1-3 mm was observed in 86% of patients, and by 4-6 mm in 14%. No early postoperative complications, including hematomas, were recorded.
Conclusion. The proposed surgical technique provides minimal tissue trauma in the operative field, absence of fibrotic changes in the reconstruction area with preservation of penile skin mobility, no severe postoperative edema, no need for wound drainage, reduced operative time and minimal blood loss, as well as a short postoperative and rehabilitation period.

Keywords

About the Authors

Corresponding author: D.V. Kurashov – urologist, Euromedprestizh Multidisciplinary Clinic, Moscow, Russia; e-mail: kdmi87@mail.ru

Similar Articles