Author(s)

Salah E. Shebl¹, Saadeddin Ali²

¹Urology Department, Faculty of Medicine for Girls, Al-Azhar University, Cairo, Egypt.
²Andrology and Dermatology Department, Faculty of Medicine, Al-Azhar University, Cairo, Egypt.

Background: Modification of surgical techniques to minimize wound infections in penile implant surgery using malleable prosthesis which is easy to use, of very low risk of mechanical failure and is financially suitable to improve outcome and ensures less complications. The aim of the study is to compare infrapubic approach and Penoscrotal approach in penile semi-rigid prosthesis implantation surgery. Patients and methods: Fifty patients were randomly divided into two groups and each group underwent one approach. Results: No statically significant differences were found between both groups in terms of operative time. Corporeal cross over was the most common intraoperative complications, 3 cases in IP approach and 6 cases in PS but not statistically significant. Peyronie’s disease patients underwent penile implant through infrapubic approach in 3 cases and PS in 4 cases with one recorded complication of keloid formations with IP. Urethral false passage reported only in one case with PS approach without affecting the procedure. Only minor complications including superficial wound infection which was significantly more with PS, 6/25 (24%) and IP 1/25 (4%), p value = 0.041. Penile and scrotal edema was common with IP approach (92%) in comparison with PS approach (60%). The urethral catheter can be abandoned with IP to avoid the risk of catheterizations. No significant relation between diabetes and infections and no erosions were encountered. Conclusion: Through this research work, infrapubic approach is better than Penoscrotal approach even if it is not commonly used by surgeon.

Infrapubic, Semi-Rigid, Erectile Dysfunction, Penile Prosthesis, Malleable Implant

Shebl, S. and Ali, S. (2017) Infrapubic versus Penoscrotal Approaches for Implantation of Semi-Rigid Penile Prosthesis. Open Journal of Urology, 7, 146-158. doi: 10.4236/oju.2017.79018.