Treatment Options and Outcomes of Penile Constriction Devices
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
Data de Publicação: | 2019 |
Outros Autores: | , , , , |
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 |