Treatment options and outcomes of penile constriction devices

10Citations
Citations of this article
37Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

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.

Author supplied keywords

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Koifman, L., Hampl, D., Silva, M. I., Pessoa, P. G. A., Ornellas, A. A., & Barros, R. (2019). Treatment options and outcomes of penile constriction devices. International Braz J Urol, 45(2), 384–391. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1677-5538.IBJU.2018.0667

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free