Management of Peyronie’s Disease During Placement of Penile Prosthesis

Abstract

Purpose of Review

Up to 20–30% of patients with Peyronie’s disease (PD) suffer from some degree of erectile dysfunction (ED). When medical management fails, the surgical approach towards those with PD and ED relies on the penile prosthesis.

Recent Findings

Graft material has advanced in recent years, and hemostatic patch material has emerged as a promising, easy to use, and cost-effective approach. Intracorporal techniques that obviate the need for neurovascular bundle mobilization have recently been described, and can be considered a frontier for further investigation.

Summary

A thorough literature review was performed using the PubMed online database with query: “Penile Prosthesis” and “Peyronie’s disease” with “Plaque excision,” “Plaque incision,” “Tunica albuginea plication,” “Modeling,” and “Excision and grafting.” While the three-piece inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) is commonly used, malleable implants may also achieve success where three-pieces are unavailable or not appropriate for use. When implant alone does not correct the deformity, manual modeling is a mainstay in treating residual curvature. Tunica plication, incision, and excision/graft techniques are required in patients with more severe/complicated plaques.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

References

  1. 1.

    Khera M, Bella A, Karpman E, Brant W, Christine B, Kansas B, et al. Penile prosthesis implantation in patients with Peyronie’s disease: results of the PROPPER study demonstrates a decrease in patient-reported depression. J Sex Med. 2018;15(5):786–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsxm.2018.02.024.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Anaissie J, Yafi FA. A review of surgical strategies for penile prosthesis implantation in patients with Peyronie’s disease. Transl Androl Urol. 2016;5(3):342–50. https://doi.org/10.21037/tau.2016.04.04.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Rajpurkar A, Dhabuwala CB. Comparison of satisfaction rates and erectile function in patients treated with sildenafil, intracavernous prostaglandin E1 and penile implant surgery for erectile dysfunction in urology practice. J Urol. 2003;170(1):159–63. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ju.0000072524.82345.6d.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    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. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1743-6109.04046.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Lyons MD, Carson CC, Coward RM. Special considerations for placement of an inflatable penile prosthesis for the patient with Peyronie’s disease: techniques and patient preference. Med Devices Auckl NZ. 2015;8:331–40. https://doi.org/10.2147/MDER.S57252.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    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.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Segal RL, Burnett AL. Surgical management for Peyronie’s disease. World J Mens Health. 2013;31(1):1–11. https://doi.org/10.5534/wjmh.2013.31.1.1.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Wilson SK, Delk JR. A new treatment for Peyronie’s disease: modeling the penis over an inflatable penile prosthesis. J Urol. 1994;152(4):1121–3. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-5347(17)32519-3.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    DiBlasio CJ, Kurta JM, Botta S, et al. Peyronie’s disease compromises the durability and component-malfunction rates in patients implanted with an inflatable penile prosthesis. BJU Int. 2010;106(5):691–4. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2009.09194.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Krishnappa P, Fernandez-Pascual E, Carballido J, Moncada I, Lledo-Garcia E, Martinez-Salamanca JI. Surgical management of Peyronie’s disease with co-existent erectile dysfunction. Sex Med. 2019;7(4):361–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esxm.2019.08.009.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    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. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2010.10023.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Stember DS, Kohler TS, Morey AF. Management of perforation injuries during and following penile prosthesis surgery. J Sex Med. 2015;12(Suppl 7):456–61. https://doi.org/10.1111/jsm.12997.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Sadeghi-Nejad H. Penile prosthesis surgery: a review of prosthetic devices and associated complications. J Sex Med. 2007;4(2):296–309. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2007.00434.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Egydio PH, Kuehhas FE. Distal penile shaft reconstruction and reinforcement: the “double-windsocks” technique. J Sex Med. 2013;10(10):2571–8. https://doi.org/10.1111/jsm.12263.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Martínez-Salamanca JI, Mueller A, Moncada I, Carballido J, Mulhall JP. Penile prosthesis surgery in patients with corporal fibrosis: a state of the art review. J Sex Med. 2011;8(7):1880–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2011.02281.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Antonini G, De Berardinis E, Del Giudice F, et al. Inflatable penile prosthesis placement, scratch technique and postoperative vacuum therapy as a combined approach to definitive treatment of Peyronie’s disease. J Urol. 2018;200(3):642–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2018.04.060.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Shaeer O, Soliman Abdelrahman IF, Mansour M, Shaeer K. Shaeer’s punch technique: transcorporeal Peyronie’s plaque surgery and penile prosthesis implantation. J Sex Med. 2020;17(7):1395–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsxm.2020.03.018.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Gholami SS, Lue TF. Correction of penile curvature using the 16-dot plication technique: a review of 132 patients. J Urol. 2002;167(5):2066–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Chung PH, Scott JF, Morey AF. High patient satisfaction of inflatable penile prosthesis insertion with synchronous penile plication for erectile dysfunction and Peyronie’s disease. J Sex Med. 2014;11(6):1593–8. https://doi.org/10.1111/jsm.12530.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Cordon BH, Osmonov D, Hatzichristodoulou G, Morey AF. Peyronie’s penile plication. Transl Androl Urol. 2017;6(4):639–44. https://doi.org/10.21037/tau.2017.07.18.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Yafi FA, Sangkum P, McCaslin IR, Hellstrom WJG. Strategies for penile prosthesis placement in Peyronie’s disease and corporal fibrosis. Curr Urol Rep. 2015;16(4):21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11934-015-0491-0.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Papagiannopoulos D, Yura E, Levine L. Examining postoperative outcomes after employing a surgical algorithm for management of Peyronie’s disease: a single-institution retrospective review. J Sex Med. 2015;12(6):1474–80. https://doi.org/10.1111/jsm.12910.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    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. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.ijir.3900515.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Farrell MR, Abdelsayed GA, Ziegelmann MJ, Levine LA. A comparison of hemostatic patches versus pericardium allograft for the treatment of complex Peyronie’s disease with penile prosthesis and plaque incision. Urology. 2019;129:113–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2019.03.008.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsxm.2017.12.012.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Hatzichristodoulou G, Yang DY, Ring JD, Hebert KJ, Ziegelman MJ, Köhler TS. Multicenter experience using collagen fleece for plaque incision with grafting to correct residual curvature at the time of inflatable penile prosthesis placement in patients with Peyronie’s disease. J Sex Med. 2020;17(6):1168–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsxm.2020.02.019.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael Tonzi.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Male Sexual Dysfunction and Disorders

Supplementary Information

ESM 1

(XLSX 12.4 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Tonzi, M., Shridharani, A. Management of Peyronie’s Disease During Placement of Penile Prosthesis. Curr Sex Health Rep (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11930-020-00301-4

Download citation

Keywords

  • Penile prosthesis
  • Peyronie’s disease
  • Plaque excision
  • Plaque incision
  • Tunica albuginea plication
  • Modeling
  • Excision and grafting