Abstract Purpose: Penile amputation in children is rare. If the amputated organ cannot be salvaged, standard treatment options include sex reassignment or creation of a penoid with a musculocutaneous flap. We describe our experience with phallic reconstruction after amputation. Methods: Between 2005 and 2007, we observed 3 patients with penile amputation. All presented a flat pubic scar and a severe urethral stricture for which urinary diversion had been performed in two.The first step of the procedure was penile augmentation. The latter included dissection and advancement of the residual erectile tissue by either division of the suspensory ligament (n = 2) or detachment of the corpora cavernosafromthepubicbones.Then,meataladvancementwasattemptedandcombinedwithastagedoral mucosa urethroplasty, if necessary. Finally, skin coverage was achieved using local flaps (n = 2) or a free graft harvested from the inguinal region. In 2 patients, a pseudoglans was sculptured from the pubic scar. Results: Innocasetheprocedurecouldbeperformedinasinglestage.Inonepatient,2additionalcosmetic revisions wererequired.Goodpenileaugmentationwasachievedinallthe3cases.Allpatientspresentedat least nocturnal erections and reported to be satisfied with the cosmetic results. Conclusions: Our experience suggests that an attempt to phallic reconstruction by retrieval of any residual erectile tissue might be worthwhile before embarking on a penile replacement. In a few cases, this may allow recreation of a penis with good cosmesis and function
Beniamin, F., Castagnetti, M., Rigamonti, W. (2008). Surgical management of penile amputation in children. JOURNAL OF PEDIATRIC SURGERY, 43(10), 1939-1943 [10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2008.05.028].
Surgical management of penile amputation in children
Castagnetti M;
2008-01-01
Abstract
Abstract Purpose: Penile amputation in children is rare. If the amputated organ cannot be salvaged, standard treatment options include sex reassignment or creation of a penoid with a musculocutaneous flap. We describe our experience with phallic reconstruction after amputation. Methods: Between 2005 and 2007, we observed 3 patients with penile amputation. All presented a flat pubic scar and a severe urethral stricture for which urinary diversion had been performed in two.The first step of the procedure was penile augmentation. The latter included dissection and advancement of the residual erectile tissue by either division of the suspensory ligament (n = 2) or detachment of the corpora cavernosafromthepubicbones.Then,meataladvancementwasattemptedandcombinedwithastagedoral mucosa urethroplasty, if necessary. Finally, skin coverage was achieved using local flaps (n = 2) or a free graft harvested from the inguinal region. In 2 patients, a pseudoglans was sculptured from the pubic scar. Results: Innocasetheprocedurecouldbeperformedinasinglestage.Inonepatient,2additionalcosmetic revisions wererequired.Goodpenileaugmentationwasachievedinallthe3cases.Allpatientspresentedat least nocturnal erections and reported to be satisfied with the cosmetic results. Conclusions: Our experience suggests that an attempt to phallic reconstruction by retrieval of any residual erectile tissue might be worthwhile before embarking on a penile replacement. In a few cases, this may allow recreation of a penis with good cosmesis and functionFile | Dimensione | Formato | |
---|---|---|---|
Surgical management of penile.pdf
solo utenti autorizzati
Tipologia:
Versione Editoriale (PDF)
Licenza:
Copyright dell'editore
Dimensione
606.48 kB
Formato
Adobe PDF
|
606.48 kB | Adobe PDF | Visualizza/Apri Richiedi una copia |
I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.