Plication for Correction of Congenital Penile Curvature: With or Without Degloving?

Samuel B Kusin; Roger K Khouri Jr; Benjamin M Dropkin; Peter N Dietrich; Ellen E Ward; Adam S Baumgarten; Jagan K Kansal; Amy I Guise; Allen F Morey

doi:10.1016/j.esxm.2021.100462

Plication for Correction of Congenital Penile Curvature: With or Without Degloving?

Sex Med. 2021 Dec;9(6):100462. doi: 10.1016/j.esxm.2021.100462. Epub 2021 Nov 6.

Authors

Samuel B Kusin¹, Roger K Khouri Jr¹, Benjamin M Dropkin¹, Peter N Dietrich², Ellen E Ward¹, Adam S Baumgarten¹, Jagan K Kansal², Amy I Guise², Allen F Morey³

Affiliations

¹ Department of Urology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA.
² Department of Urology, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI, USA.
³ Department of Urology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA. Electronic address: Allen.Morey@utsouthwestern.edu.

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.

Keywords: Congenital Penile Curvature; Non-Degloving; Plication; Surgical Outcomes.