Current opinions on the management of prolonged ischemic priapism: does penoscrotal decompression outperform corporoglanular tunneling?

Prolonged ischemic priapism presents a treatment challenge given the difficulty in achieving detumescence and effects on sexual function. To evaluate current practice patterns, an open, web-based multi-institutional survey querying surgeons' experience with and perceived efficacy of tunneling maneuvers (corporoglanular tunneling and penoscrotal decompression), as well as impressions of erectile recovery, was administered to members of societies specializing in male genital surgery. Following distribution, 141 responses were received. Tunneling procedures were the favored first-line surgical intervention in the prolonged setting (99/139, 71.2% tunneling vs. 14/139, 10.1% implant, p < .001). Although respondents were more likely to have performed corporoglanular tunneling than penoscrotal decompression (124/138, 89.9% vs. 86/137, 62.8%, p < .001), penoscrotal decompression was perceived as more effective among those who had performed both (47.3% Very or Extremely Effective for penoscrotal decompression vs. 18.7% for corporoglanular tunneling; p < .001). Many respondents who had performed both tunneling procedures felt that most regained meaningful sexual function after either corporoglanular tunneling or penoscrotal decompression (33/75, 44.0% vs. 33/74, 44.6%, p = .942). While further patient-centered investigation is warranted, this study suggests that penoscrotal decompression may outperform corporoglanular tunneling for prolonged priapism, and that recovery of sexual function may be higher than previously thought after tunneling procedures.

Surgical Management of Male Stress Incontinence: Techniques, Indications, and Pearls for Success.

Purpose: Male stress urinary incontinence (SUI) has detrimental and long-lasting effects on patients. Management of this condition is an evolving field with multiple options for surgical treatment. We sought to review the pre-operative evaluation, intra-operative considerations, post-operative care, and future directions for treatment of male SUI. Methods: A literature review was performed using the PubMed platform to identify peer-reviewed, English-language articles published within the last 5 years pertaining to management of male stress urinary incontinence with an emphasis on devices currently on the market in the United States including the artificial urinary sphincter (AUS), male urethral slings, and the ProACTTM system. Patient selection criteria, success rates, and complications were compared between the studies. Results: Twenty articles were included in the final contemporary review. Pre-operative workup most commonly included demonstration of incontinence, PPD, and cystoscopy. Definition of success varied by study; the most common definition used was social continence (0-1 pads per day). Reported rates of success were higher for the AUS than for male urethral slings (73-93% vs 70-90%, respectively). Complications for these procedures include urinary retention, erosions, infections, and device malfunction. Newer treatment options including adjustable balloon systems and adjustable slings show promise but lack long-term follow-up. Conclusion: Patient selection remains the primary consideration for surgical decision-making for management of male SUI. The AUS continues to be the gold standard for moderate-to-severe male SUI but comes with inherent risk of need for revision. Male slings may be a superior option for appropriately selected men with mild incontinence but are inferior to the AUS for moderate and severe incontinence. Ongoing research will shed light on long-term results for newer options such as the ProACT and REMEEX systems.