Penile preserving Surgery vs partial amputation of penis: functional assessment of sexual and urinary function using patient reported outcomes measures
BAUS ePoster online library. Al-Mitwalli A. 06/21/21; 319079; p4-10
Disclosure(s): No disclosures.
Mr. Abdullah Al-Mitwalli
REGULAR CONTENT
Login now to access Regular content available to all registered users.
Abstract
Discussion Forum (0)
Rate & Comment (0)
Introduction
Penile Preserving Surgery (PPS) provide comparable oncological outcomes to penile Partial Amputation (PA) for penile carcinoma. Functional outcomes especially related to voiding function are poorly documented. Aim of this study was to assess whether PPS provide better sexual and urinary function compared to PA.
Methods
We prospectively reviewed patients after PPS and PA. The PPS techniques: Glansectomy with a Split Skin Graft (G+ SSG), Glans Resurfacing with SSG (GR + SSG), Wide Local Excision +/- SSG. Functional outcomes were recorded using a Patient Reported Outcomes Measure (PROMS) questionnaire. Penile length was recorded.
Results
60 patients included, 29 following PPS, 31 following PA. Mean age was 61 and 69 in the PPS and PA group. Mean follow-up similar for both groups (29 months). Table 1 summarises techniques, BMI and penile lengths
In the PPS group, 19 patients (66%) stated that were able to achieve an erection half the time or more and 17 (59%) stated that they were able to achieve penetrative intercourse to completion. This compares to 3 (10%) patients and 2 (6%) patients in the PA group respectively.
In the PPS group, 18 patients (62%) were able to almost/always stand to urinate vs 10 patients (32%) in the PA group. 17 (59%) patients reported minimal/never spraying whilst urinating following PPS vs 18 (58%) following PA. Table 2 summarises PROMS.
Conclusions
PPS provides better long-term sexual function when compared to PA. Far more patients were able to pass urine while standing with PPS, although the spraying rates were similar.
Penile Preserving Surgery (PPS) provide comparable oncological outcomes to penile Partial Amputation (PA) for penile carcinoma. Functional outcomes especially related to voiding function are poorly documented. Aim of this study was to assess whether PPS provide better sexual and urinary function compared to PA.
Methods
We prospectively reviewed patients after PPS and PA. The PPS techniques: Glansectomy with a Split Skin Graft (G+ SSG), Glans Resurfacing with SSG (GR + SSG), Wide Local Excision +/- SSG. Functional outcomes were recorded using a Patient Reported Outcomes Measure (PROMS) questionnaire. Penile length was recorded.
Results
60 patients included, 29 following PPS, 31 following PA. Mean age was 61 and 69 in the PPS and PA group. Mean follow-up similar for both groups (29 months). Table 1 summarises techniques, BMI and penile lengths
In the PPS group, 19 patients (66%) stated that were able to achieve an erection half the time or more and 17 (59%) stated that they were able to achieve penetrative intercourse to completion. This compares to 3 (10%) patients and 2 (6%) patients in the PA group respectively.
In the PPS group, 18 patients (62%) were able to almost/always stand to urinate vs 10 patients (32%) in the PA group. 17 (59%) patients reported minimal/never spraying whilst urinating following PPS vs 18 (58%) following PA. Table 2 summarises PROMS.
Conclusions
PPS provides better long-term sexual function when compared to PA. Far more patients were able to pass urine while standing with PPS, although the spraying rates were similar.
Introduction
Penile Preserving Surgery (PPS) provide comparable oncological outcomes to penile Partial Amputation (PA) for penile carcinoma. Functional outcomes especially related to voiding function are poorly documented. Aim of this study was to assess whether PPS provide better sexual and urinary function compared to PA.
Methods
We prospectively reviewed patients after PPS and PA. The PPS techniques: Glansectomy with a Split Skin Graft (G+ SSG), Glans Resurfacing with SSG (GR + SSG), Wide Local Excision +/- SSG. Functional outcomes were recorded using a Patient Reported Outcomes Measure (PROMS) questionnaire. Penile length was recorded.
Results
60 patients included, 29 following PPS, 31 following PA. Mean age was 61 and 69 in the PPS and PA group. Mean follow-up similar for both groups (29 months). Table 1 summarises techniques, BMI and penile lengths
In the PPS group, 19 patients (66%) stated that were able to achieve an erection half the time or more and 17 (59%) stated that they were able to achieve penetrative intercourse to completion. This compares to 3 (10%) patients and 2 (6%) patients in the PA group respectively.
In the PPS group, 18 patients (62%) were able to almost/always stand to urinate vs 10 patients (32%) in the PA group. 17 (59%) patients reported minimal/never spraying whilst urinating following PPS vs 18 (58%) following PA. Table 2 summarises PROMS.
Conclusions
PPS provides better long-term sexual function when compared to PA. Far more patients were able to pass urine while standing with PPS, although the spraying rates were similar.
Penile Preserving Surgery (PPS) provide comparable oncological outcomes to penile Partial Amputation (PA) for penile carcinoma. Functional outcomes especially related to voiding function are poorly documented. Aim of this study was to assess whether PPS provide better sexual and urinary function compared to PA.
Methods
We prospectively reviewed patients after PPS and PA. The PPS techniques: Glansectomy with a Split Skin Graft (G+ SSG), Glans Resurfacing with SSG (GR + SSG), Wide Local Excision +/- SSG. Functional outcomes were recorded using a Patient Reported Outcomes Measure (PROMS) questionnaire. Penile length was recorded.
Results
60 patients included, 29 following PPS, 31 following PA. Mean age was 61 and 69 in the PPS and PA group. Mean follow-up similar for both groups (29 months). Table 1 summarises techniques, BMI and penile lengths
In the PPS group, 19 patients (66%) stated that were able to achieve an erection half the time or more and 17 (59%) stated that they were able to achieve penetrative intercourse to completion. This compares to 3 (10%) patients and 2 (6%) patients in the PA group respectively.
In the PPS group, 18 patients (62%) were able to almost/always stand to urinate vs 10 patients (32%) in the PA group. 17 (59%) patients reported minimal/never spraying whilst urinating following PPS vs 18 (58%) following PA. Table 2 summarises PROMS.
Conclusions
PPS provides better long-term sexual function when compared to PA. Far more patients were able to pass urine while standing with PPS, although the spraying rates were similar.
Code of conduct/disclaimer available in General Terms & Conditions
{{ help_message }}
{{filter}}