Advertisement

Peyronie’s Disease

  • W. K. Yeates
Chapter
Part of the Clinical Practice in Urology book series (PRACTICE UROLOG)

Abstract

Not only is the pathogenesis of Peyronie’s disease still obscure, but also the clinical features vary with the site of the plaque and the patient’s erection ability. The most frequent site, which is in the dorsal part of the septum, between the corpora cavernosa and their adjacent sheaths, results in dorsal concavity on erection. The deformity may not be symmetrical, resulting also in some lateral deviation. Occasionally, both dorsal and ventral plaques of equal deforming potential are present and balance each other, the plaque being noticed just as a hardness by the patient or by the doctor.

Keywords

Urologic Surgery Mattress Suture Penile Prosthesis Corpus Spongiosum Dermal Graft 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Carson CC, Hodge GB, Anderson EE (1983) Penile prosthesis in Peyronie’s disease. Br J Urol 55 (4): 417–421PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Frank JD, Mors B, Pryor JP (1981) The surgical correction of erectile deformities of the penis of 100 men. Br J Urol 53: 645–647PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Horton CE, Devine CJ (1973) Peyronie’s disease. Plastic and reconstructive surgery. 52: 503–509PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Kelami A (1977) Surgical treatment of Peyronie’s disease using human dura. Eur Urol 3: 191–192PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Lemberger RJ, Bishop MC, Bates CP (1984) Nesbit’s operation for Peyronie’s disease. Br J Urol 56: 721–723PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Loeffler RA, Sayegh S, Lash H (1964) The artificial os penis. Plast Reconstr Surg 34: 71–74PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Melman A, Holland TF (1978) Evaluation of the dermal craft inlay technique for the surgical treatment of Peyronie’s disease. J Urology 120: 421–422Google Scholar
  8. Nesbit RM (1965) Congenital curvature of the phallus: report of 3 cases with description of corrective operation J Urol 2: 230–232Google Scholar
  9. Pryor JP, Fitzpatrick JM (1979) A new approach to the correction of the penile deformity in Peyronie’s disease. J Urol 122: 622–623PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Raz S, DeKernion JB, Kaufman JJ (1977) Surgical treatment of Peyronie’s disease: a new approach. J Urol 117: 598–601PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Smith BH (1966) Peyronie’s disease. Am J Clin Pathol 45: 670–678PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Wild RM, Devine CJ, Horton CE (1979) Dermal graft repair of Peyronie’s disease: survey of 50 patients. J Urol 121: 47–50PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Williams JL, Thomas GG (1970) The natural history of Peyronie’s disease. J Urol 103: 75–76PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1988

Authors and Affiliations

  • W. K. Yeates

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations