Penile Length in Adulthood after Exstrophy Reconstruction
To determine if penile length in men after exstrophy reconstruction is short because of a congenital defect in the size of the corpora cavernosa.
Materials and Methods
Pelvic MRI scans of ten men who underwent exstrophy reconstruction as children and ten age and race matched controls were performed and measurements of penile and pelvic anatomy were compared.
The length of the corpora cavernosa in men after exstrophy reconstruction is shorter than normal. Dividing total corporal length into an anterior and posterior segment reveals that the anterior segment is short but that the posterior segment, attached to the pubic ramus, is normal. However, the diameter of the posterior corporal segment is greater than in controls. Although diastasis of the symphysis pubis increases the intersymphyseal and intercorporal distances, the angle between the corpora cavernosa is unchanged, presumably because the corporal bodies are separated in a parallel fashion.
The penis in men after exstrophy reconstruction is short, at least in part due to a congenital deficiency of corporal tissue. Since diastasis of the pubic symphysis and chordee reduce penile visibility, approximation of the pubic symphysis and procedures to straighten the penis may improve its cosmetic appearance. However, because the corpora cavernosa are short, penile length in men after exstrophy reconstruction will always be shorter than normal.
KeywordsPubic Symphysis Corpus Cavernosa Pubic Ramus Puborectalis Muscle Bladder Exstrophy
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 14.Johnston, JH and Kogan, SJ. The Exstrophic Anomalies and Their Surgical Reconstruction. Curr Probs Surg:l-39, August 1974.Google Scholar
- 19.Duckett, JW. Use of Paraexstrophy Skin Pedicle Grafts for Correction of Exstrophy and Epispadias Repair. Birth Defects 13: 171, 1977.Google Scholar
- 20.Sponseller, PD. Anterior Pelvic Osteotomy of Superior Pubic Ramus to Facilitate Bladder Exstrophy Repair, in Dialogues in Pediatric Urology, Osteotomy and the Bladder Exstrophy Patient 16 (1):3, 1993.Google Scholar