Current Urology Reports

, 20:9 | Cite as

A Contemporary Evaluation of Peyronie’s Disease During Penile Prosthesis Placement: MOST, MUST, and More

  • Jonathan Nicholas WarnerEmail author
Surgery (J Simhan, Section Editor)
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Topical Collection on Surgery


Purpose of Review

The use of penile implant for the treatment of both erectile dysfunction and Peyronie’s disease has changed little in the last 40 years, primarily limited to modeling and plaque incision. In the current review, I explore the history of Peyronie’s treatment at the time of penile prosthesis placement and explore new surgical options that help resolve several of the issues that were not treated with the traditional approaches.

Recent Findings

Advancements have been made in the area of graft material, lengthening procedures, and transcorporal techniques. The goal of these operations is not only to correct curvature, but also to restore length. Not surprisingly, the more complex and aggressive the attempt to correct the curvature, the more complications are possible. While modeling has a low rate of urethral injury, complex lengthening procedure with neurovascular bundle and urethral mobilization may lead to the dreaded complication of glans necrosis. Meanwhile, transcorporal techniques seem to offer a more modest improvement for length and curvature restoration with fewer risks than those seen in more aggressive lengthening procedures.


The main limitation to the historical treatment of Peyronie’s disease during penile prosthesis, modeling, and plaque incision is there is often no resolution to the penile length—as the maneuvers are made after the implant is already in place. Newer lengthening procedures are promising, however carry increased risks and complexity.


Peyronie’s disease Penile prosthesis placement Urologic surgery Penile implant 


Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

Jonathan Nicholas Warner is a consultant for Coloplast and Olympus.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.


  1. 1.
    Mulhall J, Ahmed A, Anderson M. Penile prosthetic surgery for Peyronie’s disease: defining the need for intraoperative adjuvant maneuvers. J Sex Med. 2004;1(3):318–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Levine LA, Benson J, Hoover C. Inflatable penile prosthesis placement in men with Peyronie’s disease and drug-resistant erectile dysfunction: a single-center study. J Sex Med. 2010;7(11):3775–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Raz S, Dekernion JB, Kaufman JJ. Surgical treatment of Peyronie’s disease: a new approach. J Urol. 1977;117(5):598–601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Wilson SK, Delk JR 2nd. A new treatment for Peyronie’s disease: modeling the penis over an inflatable penile prosthesis. J Urol. 1994;152(4):1121–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Rahman NU, Carrion RE, Bochinski D, Lue TF. Combined penile plication surgery and insertion of penile prosthesis for severe penile curvature and erectile dysfunction. J Urol. 2004;171(6 Pt 1):2346–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Montorsi F, Guazzoni G, Barbieri L, Maga T, Rigatti P, Graziottin A, et al. AMS 700 CX inflatable penile implants for Peyronie’s disease: functional results, morbidity and patient-partner satisfaction. Int J Impot Res. 1996;8(2):81–5 discussion 5-6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Levine LA, Burnett AL. Standard operating procedures for Peyronie’s disease. J Sex Med. 2013;10(1):230–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Levine LA, Dimitriou RJ. A surgical algorithm for penile prosthesis placement in men with erectile failure and Peyronie’s disease. Int J Impot Res. 2000;12(3):147–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Garaffa G, Minervini A, Christopher NA, Minhas S, Ralph DJ. The management of residual curvature after penile prosthesis implantation in men with Peyronie’s disease. BJU Int. 2011;108(7):1152–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wilson SK, Cleves MA, Delk JR 2nd. Long-term followup of treatment for Peyronie’s disease: modeling the penis over an inflatable penile prosthesis. J Urol. 2001;165(3):825–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mulcahy JJ, Wilson SK. Management of Peyronie’s disease with penile prostheses. Int J Impot Res. 2002;14(5):384–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Chung E, Solomon M, DeYoung L, Brock GB. Comparison between AMS 700 CX and Coloplast Titan inflatable penile prosthesis for Peyronie’s disease treatment and remodeling: clinical outcomes and patient satisfaction. J Sex Med. 2013;10(11):2855–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mulhall J, Anderson M, Parker M. A surgical algorithm for men with combined Peyronie’s disease and erectile dysfunction: functional and satisfaction outcomes. J Sex Med. 2005;2(1):132–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Montague DK, Angermeier KW, Lakin MM, Ingleright BJ. AMS 3-piece inflatable penile prosthesis implantation in men with Peyronie’s disease: comparison of CX and Ultrex cylinders. J Urol. 1996;156(5):1633–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Segal RL, Burnett AL. Surgical management for Peyronie’s disease. The world journal of men's health. 2013;31(1):1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wilson SK, Cleves MA, Delk JR 2nd. Ultrex cylinders: problems with uncontrolled lengthening (the S-shaped deformity). J Urol. 1996;155(1):135–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hudak SJ, Morey AF, Adibi M, Bagrodia A. Favorable patient reported outcomes after penile plication for wide array of Peyronie disease abnormalities. J Urol. 2013;189(3):1019–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hatzichristodoulou G, Gschwend JE, Lahme S. Surgical therapy of Peyronie’s disease by partial plaque excision and grafting with collagen fleece: feasibility study of a new technique. Int J Impot Res. 2013;25(5):183–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hatzichristodoulou G. The PICS technique: a novel approach for residual curvature correction during penile prosthesis implantation in patients with severe Peyronie’s disease using the collagen fleece TachoSil. J Sex Med. 2018;15(3):416–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Falcone M, Preto M, Ceruti C, Timpano M, Garaffa G, Sedigh O, et al. A comparative study between 2 different grafts used as patches after plaque incision and inflatable penile prosthesis implantation for end-stage Peyronie’s disease. J Sex Med. 2018;15(6):848–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Shaeer O. Trans-corporal incision of Peyronie’s plaques. J Sex Med. 2011;8(2):589–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Perito P, Wilson S. The Peyronie’s plaque "scratch": an adjunct to modeling. J Sex Med. 2013;10(5):1194–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Antonini G, De Berardinis E, Del Giudice F, Busetto GM, Lauretti S, Fragas R, et al. Inflatable penile prosthesis placement, scratch technique and postoperative vacuum therapy as a combined approach to definitive treatment of Peyronie’s disease. J Urology. 2018.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sansalone S, Garaffa G, Djinovic R, Egydio P, Vespasiani G, Miano R, et al. Simultaneous penile lengthening and penile prosthesis implantation in patients with Peyronie’s disease, refractory erectile dysfunction, and severe penile shortening. J Sex Med. 2012;9(1):316–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Egydio PH, Kuehhas FE, Sansalone S. Penile length and girth restoration in severe Peyronie’s disease using circular and longitudinal grafting. BJU Int. 2013;111(4 Pt B):E213–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Rolle L, Ceruti C, Timpano M, Sedigh O, Destefanis P, Galletto E, et al. A new, innovative, lengthening surgical procedure for Peyronie’s disease by penile prosthesis implantation with double dorsal-ventral patch graft: the "sliding technique". J Sex Med. 2012;9(9):2389–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Rolle L, Falcone M, Ceruti C, Timpano M, Sedigh O, Ralph DJ, et al. A prospective multicentric international study on the surgical outcomes and patients’ satisfaction rates of the ‘sliding’ technique for end-stage Peyronie’s disease with severe shortening of the penis and erectile dysfunction. BJU Int. 2016;117(5):814–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Egydio PH, Kuehhas FE. Penile lengthening and widening without grafting according to a modified ‘sliding’ technique. BJU Int. 2015;116(6):965–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Egydio PH, Kuehhas FE, Valenzuela RJ. Modified sliding technique (MoST) for penile lengthening with insertion of inflatable penile prosthesis. J Sex Med. 2015;12(5):1100–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Egydio PH, Kuehhas FE. The multiple-slit technique (MUST) for penile length and girth restoration. J Sex Med. 2018;15(2):261–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Wilson SK, Mora-Estaves C, Egydio P, Ralph D, Habous M, Love C, et al. Glans necrosis following penile prosthesis implantation: prevention and treatment suggestions. Urology. 2017;107:144–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Division of Urology and Urologic OncologyCity Of HopeDuarteUSA

Personalised recommendations