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...
Main Authors: | , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |