Treatment Options and Outcomes of Penile Constriction Devices

ABSTRACT Purpose: To study the effect of penile constriction devices used on a large series of patients who presented at our emergency facility. We explored treatment options to prevent a wide range of vascular and mechanical injuries occurring due to penile entrapment. Materials and Methods: Betw...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Leandro Koifman, Daniel Hampl, Maria Isabel Silva, Paulo Gabriel Antunes Pessoa, Antonio Augusto Ornellas, Rodrigo Barros
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Sociedade Brasileira de Urologia
Series:International Brazilian Journal of Urology
Subjects:
Online Access:http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1677-55382019000200384&lng=en&tlng=en
id doaj-8b3c9a4ccc1f4ae3bf7d2f6078493b13
record_format Article
spelling doaj-8b3c9a4ccc1f4ae3bf7d2f6078493b132020-11-25T01:33:17ZengSociedade Brasileira de UrologiaInternational Brazilian Journal of Urology1677-611945238439110.1590/s1677-5538.ibju.2018.0667S1677-55382019000200384Treatment Options and Outcomes of Penile Constriction DevicesLeandro KoifmanDaniel HamplMaria Isabel SilvaPaulo Gabriel Antunes PessoaAntonio Augusto OrnellasRodrigo BarrosABSTRACT Purpose: To study the effect of penile constriction devices used on a large series of patients who presented at our emergency facility. We explored treatment options to prevent a wide range of vascular and mechanical injuries occurring due to penile entrapment. Materials and Methods: Between January 2001 and March 2016, 26 patients with penile entrapment were admitted to our facility and prospectively evaluated. Results: The time that elapsed from penile constrictor application to hospital admission varied from 10 hours to 6 weeks (mean: 22.8 hours). Non-metallic devices were used by 18 patients (66.6%) while the other nine (33.4%) had used metallic objects. Acute urinary retention was present in six (23%) patients, of whom four (66.6%) underwent percutaneous surgical cystotomy and two (33.4%) underwent simple bladder catheterization. The main reason for penile constrictor placement was erectile dysfunction, accounting for 15 (55.5%) cases. Autoerotic intention, psychiatric disorders, and sexual violence were responsible in five (18.5%), five (18.5%), and two (7.4%) cases, respectively. The mean hospital stay was 18 hours (range, 6 hours to 3 weeks). Conclusion: Penile strangulation treatment must be immediate through the extraction of the foreign body, avoiding vascular impairments that can lead to serious complications. Most patients present with low-grade injuries and use penile constrictors due to erectile dysfunction. Removal of constrictor device can be challenging. The use of specific tools for achieving penile release from constrictors is a fast, safe and effective method. Patients with urinary retention may require urinary diversion.http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1677-55382019000200384&lng=en&tlng=enPenisConstrictionTherapeutics
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Leandro Koifman
Daniel Hampl
Maria Isabel Silva
Paulo Gabriel Antunes Pessoa
Antonio Augusto Ornellas
Rodrigo Barros
spellingShingle Leandro Koifman
Daniel Hampl
Maria Isabel Silva
Paulo Gabriel Antunes Pessoa
Antonio Augusto Ornellas
Rodrigo Barros
Treatment Options and Outcomes of Penile Constriction Devices
International Brazilian Journal of Urology
Penis
Constriction
Therapeutics
author_facet Leandro Koifman
Daniel Hampl
Maria Isabel Silva
Paulo Gabriel Antunes Pessoa
Antonio Augusto Ornellas
Rodrigo Barros
author_sort Leandro Koifman
title Treatment Options and Outcomes of Penile Constriction Devices
title_short Treatment Options and Outcomes of Penile Constriction Devices
title_full Treatment Options and Outcomes of Penile Constriction Devices
title_fullStr Treatment Options and Outcomes of Penile Constriction Devices
title_full_unstemmed Treatment Options and Outcomes of Penile Constriction Devices
title_sort treatment options and outcomes of penile constriction devices
publisher Sociedade Brasileira de Urologia
series International Brazilian Journal of Urology
issn 1677-6119
description ABSTRACT Purpose: To study the effect of penile constriction devices used on a large series of patients who presented at our emergency facility. We explored treatment options to prevent a wide range of vascular and mechanical injuries occurring due to penile entrapment. Materials and Methods: Between January 2001 and March 2016, 26 patients with penile entrapment were admitted to our facility and prospectively evaluated. Results: The time that elapsed from penile constrictor application to hospital admission varied from 10 hours to 6 weeks (mean: 22.8 hours). Non-metallic devices were used by 18 patients (66.6%) while the other nine (33.4%) had used metallic objects. Acute urinary retention was present in six (23%) patients, of whom four (66.6%) underwent percutaneous surgical cystotomy and two (33.4%) underwent simple bladder catheterization. The main reason for penile constrictor placement was erectile dysfunction, accounting for 15 (55.5%) cases. Autoerotic intention, psychiatric disorders, and sexual violence were responsible in five (18.5%), five (18.5%), and two (7.4%) cases, respectively. The mean hospital stay was 18 hours (range, 6 hours to 3 weeks). Conclusion: Penile strangulation treatment must be immediate through the extraction of the foreign body, avoiding vascular impairments that can lead to serious complications. Most patients present with low-grade injuries and use penile constrictors due to erectile dysfunction. Removal of constrictor device can be challenging. The use of specific tools for achieving penile release from constrictors is a fast, safe and effective method. Patients with urinary retention may require urinary diversion.
topic Penis
Constriction
Therapeutics
url http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1677-55382019000200384&lng=en&tlng=en
work_keys_str_mv AT leandrokoifman treatmentoptionsandoutcomesofpenileconstrictiondevices
AT danielhampl treatmentoptionsandoutcomesofpenileconstrictiondevices
AT mariaisabelsilva treatmentoptionsandoutcomesofpenileconstrictiondevices
AT paulogabrielantunespessoa treatmentoptionsandoutcomesofpenileconstrictiondevices
AT antonioaugustoornellas treatmentoptionsandoutcomesofpenileconstrictiondevices
AT rodrigobarros treatmentoptionsandoutcomesofpenileconstrictiondevices
_version_ 1725078284438339584