medigraphic.com
Organo Oficial de la Sociedad Mexicana de Urología

2023, Number 5

<< Back Next >>

Rev Mex Urol 2023; 83 (5)

Magnetic resonance image and the diagnosis of penile prosthesis disturbances. Case Report

Puentes BAF, Caicedo-Giraldo MA, López ZVS, Carvajal OA, García-Perdomo HA

Language: English
References: 21
Page: 1-7
PDF size: 240.99 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Penile prostheses are the third line of treatment for erectile dysfunction. It produces high patient satisfaction. Complications can occur, and the urologist must be prepared to recognize and treat them. Nuclear magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) can be a valuable tool for diagnosis and decision- making.
We report the case of a patient with a penile prosthesis with a complication related to the device, in whom MRI was essential for the assessment, diagnosis, and treatment.
In conclusion, urologists should be familiarized with MRI, an alternative imaging method for diagnosing complications associated with penile implants.


REFERENCES

  1. Hatzimouratidis K, Amar E, Eardley I,Giuliano F, Hatzichristou D, Montorsi F, etal. Guidelines on male sexual dysfunction:erectile dysfunction and premature ejaculation.Eur Urol. 2010;57(5):804–14. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2010.02.020

  2. Burnett AL, Nehra A, Breau RH, CulkinDJ, Faraday MM, Hakim LS, et al. ErectileDysfunction: AUA Guideline. Journal ofUrology. 2018;200(3):633–41. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2018.05.004

  3. Mobley DF, Khera M, Baum N. Recent advancesin the treatment of erectile dysfunction. PostgradMed J. 2017;93(1105):679–85. doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/postgradmedj-2016-134073

  4. Lee DJ, Najari BB, Davison WL, Al AwamlhBAH, Zhao F, Paduch DA, et al. Trends in theUtilization of Penile Prostheses in the Treatmentof Erectile Dysfunction in the United States. TheJournal of Sexual Medicine. 2015;12(7):1638–45. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/jsm.12921

  5. McPhail EF, Nehra A, Bruner BC, KawashimaA, King BF, Kim B. MRI and its role in theevaluation and surgical decision making inpatients with challenging IPP presentations:descriptions of MRI findings and algorithmfor patient management: challenges withinflatable penile prostheses. BJU International.2012;109(12):1848–52. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410x.2011.10683.x

  6. Akakpo W, Pineda MA, Burnett AL. CriticalAnalysis of Satisfaction Assessment AfterPenile Prosthesis Surgery. Sexual MedicineReviews. 2017;5(2):244–51. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sxmr.2017.01.001

  7. Selph JP, Carson CC. Penile ProsthesisInfection: Approaches to Prevention andTreatment. Urologic Clinics of NorthAmerica. 2011;38(2):227–35. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ucl.2011.02.007

  8. Scherzer ND, Dick B, Gabrielson AT, AlzweriLM, Hellstrom WJG. Penile ProsthesisComplications: Planning, Prevention,and Decision Making. Sexual MedicineReviews. 2019;7(2):349–59. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sxmr.2018.04.002

  9. Ramanathan S, Bertolotto M, Shamsodini A,Heidous M, Dogra V, Ramchandani P, et al.Comprehensive Multimodality Imaging Reviewof Complications of Penile Prostheses. AJR AmJ Roentgenol. 2018;210(6):1200–7. doi: https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.17.18943

  10. Moncada I, Ascensios J, López I, Subirá D,Krisnappa P. Complicaciones intraoperatorias ypostoperatorias de la cirugía de prótesis de pene.Diagnóstico y tratamiento. Actas UrológicasEspañolas. 2020;44(5):357–66. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acuro.2020.01.014

  11. Wilson SK, Cleves MA, Delk JR. Comparison ofmechanical reliability of original and enhancedmentor* Alpha I penile prosthesis. Journal ofUrology. 1999;162(3 Part 1):715–8. doi: https://doi.org/10.1097/00005392-199909010-00022

  12. Sadeghi-Nejad H, Sharma A, Irwin RJ,Wilson SK, Delk JR. Reservoir herniationas a complication of three-piece penileprosthesis insertion. Urology. 2001;57(1):142–5. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/s0090-4295(00)00864-5

  13. Hartman RP, Kawashima A, Takahashi N,LeRoy AJ, King BF. Inflatable penile prosthesis(IPP): diagnosis of complications. AbdomRadiol (NY). 2016;41(6):1187–96. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-016-0686-y

  14. Aguila F, Vinay J, Palma C. Prótesis depene: una solución efectiva. Rev Chil Urol.2015;80(2):69–71.

  15. Gallo Vallejo FJ, Ruiz VG. Diagnóstico.Estudio radiológico. Ecografía, tomografíacomputarizada y resonancia magnética.Atención Primaria. 2014;46:21–8. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/s0212-6567(14)70040-x

  16. Thiel DD, Broderick GA, Bridges M.Utility of magnetic resonance imagingin evaluating inflatable penile prosthesismalfunction and complaints. Int J ImpotRes. 2003;15(S5):S155–61. doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.ijir.3901094

  17. Chorney ET, Ramchandani P, Jaffe WI, SiegelmanES. CT and MR Imaging Features of ArtificialUrinary Sphincters, Penile Prostheses, andOther Devices in the Male Lower GenitourinaryTract. RadioGraphics. 2018;38(3):794–805. doi:https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.2018170087

  18. Pacheco Usmayo A, Torregrosa AndrésA, Flores Méndez J, Luján Marco S, RogelBertó R. Utilidad de la resonancia magnéticaen la valoración postquirúrgica de pacientescon prótesis hidráulica de pene. Radiología.2017;59(6):504–10. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rx.2017.04.004

  19. Levin MF, Munk PL, Vellet AD, Chin JL.Self-contained, inflatable penile prosthesis:Magnetic resonance appearance. AustralasRadiol. 1994;38(1):51–3. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1440-1673.1994.tb00126.x

  20. 20 Labra W. A, González C. F, Barahona Z. D,Fuentes S. C. Avances imagenológicos enurología. In: Manual de Urología. 2nd ed. Chile:Sociedad Chilena de Urología

  21. Moncada I, Jara J, Cabello R, Monzo JI,Hernandez C. Radiological assessment of penileprosthesis: the role of magnetic resonanceimaging. World J Urol. 2004;22(5):371–7. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-004-0427-7




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com