Treatment Options and Outcomes of Penile Constriction Devices

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Koifman,Leandro
Data de Publicação: 2019
Outros Autores: Hampl,Daniel, Silva,Maria Isabel, Pessoa,Paulo Gabriel Antunes, Ornellas,Antonio Augusto, Barros,Rodrigo
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: eng
Título da fonte: International Braz J Urol (Online)
Texto Completo: http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1677-55382019000200384
Resumo: 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.
id SBU-1_46ace157fb700a7add144aa86f63822a
oai_identifier_str oai:scielo:S1677-55382019000200384
network_acronym_str SBU-1
network_name_str International Braz J Urol (Online)
repository_id_str
spelling Treatment Options and Outcomes of Penile Constriction DevicesPenisConstrictionTherapeuticsABSTRACT 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.Sociedade Brasileira de Urologia2019-04-01info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersiontext/htmlhttp://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1677-55382019000200384International braz j urol v.45 n.2 2019reponame:International Braz J Urol (Online)instname:Sociedade Brasileira de Urologia (SBU)instacron:SBU10.1590/s1677-5538.ibju.2018.0667info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessKoifman,LeandroHampl,DanielSilva,Maria IsabelPessoa,Paulo Gabriel AntunesOrnellas,Antonio AugustoBarros,Rodrigoeng2019-05-22T00:00:00Zoai:scielo:S1677-55382019000200384Revistahttp://www.brazjurol.com.br/ONGhttps://old.scielo.br/oai/scielo-oai.php||brazjurol@brazjurol.com.br1677-61191677-5538opendoar:2019-05-22T00:00International Braz J Urol (Online) - Sociedade Brasileira de Urologia (SBU)false
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Treatment Options and Outcomes of Penile Constriction Devices
title Treatment Options and Outcomes of Penile Constriction Devices
spellingShingle Treatment Options and Outcomes of Penile Constriction Devices
Koifman,Leandro
Penis
Constriction
Therapeutics
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
author Koifman,Leandro
author_facet Koifman,Leandro
Hampl,Daniel
Silva,Maria Isabel
Pessoa,Paulo Gabriel Antunes
Ornellas,Antonio Augusto
Barros,Rodrigo
author_role author
author2 Hampl,Daniel
Silva,Maria Isabel
Pessoa,Paulo Gabriel Antunes
Ornellas,Antonio Augusto
Barros,Rodrigo
author2_role author
author
author
author
author
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Koifman,Leandro
Hampl,Daniel
Silva,Maria Isabel
Pessoa,Paulo Gabriel Antunes
Ornellas,Antonio Augusto
Barros,Rodrigo
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv Penis
Constriction
Therapeutics
topic Penis
Constriction
Therapeutics
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.
publishDate 2019
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2019-04-01
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1677-55382019000200384
url http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1677-55382019000200384
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv 10.1590/s1677-5538.ibju.2018.0667
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv text/html
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Sociedade Brasileira de Urologia
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Sociedade Brasileira de Urologia
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv International braz j urol v.45 n.2 2019
reponame:International Braz J Urol (Online)
instname:Sociedade Brasileira de Urologia (SBU)
instacron:SBU
instname_str Sociedade Brasileira de Urologia (SBU)
instacron_str SBU
institution SBU
reponame_str International Braz J Urol (Online)
collection International Braz J Urol (Online)
repository.name.fl_str_mv International Braz J Urol (Online) - Sociedade Brasileira de Urologia (SBU)
repository.mail.fl_str_mv ||brazjurol@brazjurol.com.br
_version_ 1750318076799221760