The role of imaging in patients with corporal fibrosis undergoing penile prosthesis placement: a narrative review

Técnicas de imagen y colocación de una prótesis de pene en pacientes con fibrosis corporal: una revisión narrativa

Penile prosthesis implantation (PPI) is a definitive solution for severe erectile dysfunction unresponsive to conventional therapies. However, in patients with corporal fibrosis (CF), the procedure presents significant challenges and higher complication risks. This narrative review explores the crucial role of imaging techniques, such as ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging, in preoperative planning for PPI in patients with CF. Through a comprehensive literature search, we analyzed studies focusing on the efficacy of these imaging modalities in assessing fibrosis severity and guiding surgical strategies. Our findings highlight that advanced imaging provides essential insights into fibrosis extent, thereby optimizing surgical outcomes and reducing potential complications. The review underscores the importance of meticulous preoperative imaging in improving patient management and surgical precision in this complex clinical scenario.

Resumen

La implantación de prótesis de pene (IPP) es una solución definitiva para la disfunción eréctil grave que no responde a las terapias convencionales. Sin embargo, en pacientes con fibrosis corporal (FC), el procedimiento presenta retos significativos y mayores riesgos de complicaciones. Esta revisión narrativa explora el papel crucial de las técnicas de imagen, como la ecografía y la resonancia magnética, en la planificación preoperatoria de la IPP en pacientes con FC. Mediante una exhaustiva búsqueda bibliográfica, se analizaron estudios centrados en la eficacia de estas modalidades de imagen para evaluar la gravedad de la fibrosis y orientar las estrategias quirúrgicas. Nuestros hallazgos destacan que la imagenología avanzada proporciona información esencial sobre la extensión de la fibrosis, optimizando así los resultados quirúrgicos y reduciendo las posibles complicaciones. La revisión subraya la importancia de un diagnóstico por imagen preoperatorio meticuloso para mejorar el tratamiento de los pacientes y la precisión quirúrgica en este complejo escenario clínico.

Penile fibrosis; Peyronie’s disease; Priapism; Penile prosthesis; Imaging techniques

Palabras Clave

Fibrosis peneana; Enfermedad de peyronie; Priapismo; Prótesis peneana; Técnicas de imagen

[1] European Association of Urology. Management of erectile dysfunction. 2024. Available at: https://uroweb.org/guidelines/sexual-and-reproductive-health/chapter/management-of-erectile-dysfunction (Accessed: 14 January 2024).

[2] Manfredi C, Fortier É, Faix A, Martínez-Salamanca JI. Penile implant surgery satisfaction assessment. The Journal of Sexual Medicine. 2021; 18: 868–874.

[3] Byrne ER, Ungerer GN, Ziegelmann MJ, Kohler TS. Complications and troubleshooting in primary penile prosthetic surgery—a review. International Journal of Impotence Research. 2023; 35: 679–685.

[4] Fernandez Crespo RE, Stroie F, Taylor L, Pignanelli M, Parker J, Carrion R. Penile fibrosis—still scarring urologists today: a narrative review. Translational Andrology and Urology. 2024; 13: 127–138.

[5] Martínez-Salamanca JI, Mueller A, Moncada I, Carballido J, Mulhall JP. Penile prosthesis surgery in patients with corporal fibrosis: a state of the art review. The Journal of Sexual Medicine. 2011; 8: 1880–1889.

[6] Gonzalez-Cadavid NF. Mechanisms of penile fibrosis. The Journal of Sexual Medicine. 2009; 6: 353–362.

[7] Levine LA. The clinical and psychosocial impact of Peyronie’s disease. The American Journal of Managed Care. 2013; 19: S55–S61.

[8] Tsambarlis PN, Chaus F, Levine LA. Successful placement of penile prostheses in men with severe corporal fibrosis following vacuum therapy protocol. The Journal of Sexual Medicine. 2017; 14: 44–46.

[9] Kim J, Drury R, Morenas R, Raheem O. Pathophysiology and grayscale ultrasonography of penile corporal fibrosis. Sexual Medicine Reviews. 2022; 10: 99–107.

[10] Biebel MG, Gross MS, Munarriz R. Review of ischemic and non-ischemic priapism. Current Urology Reports. 2022; 23: 143–153.

[11] Yücel ÖB, Pazır Y, Kadıoğlu A. Penile prosthesis implantation in priapism. Sexual Medicine Reviews. 2018; 6: 310–318.

[12] Reddy AG, Alzweri LM, Gabrielson AT, Leinwand G, Hellstrom WJG. Role of penile prosthesis in priapism: a review. The World Journal of Men’s Health. 2018; 36: 4–14.

[13] Kirkham A. MRI of the penis. The British Journal of Radiology. 2012; 85: S86–S93.

[14] Barham DW, Chang C, Hammad M, Pyrgidis N, Swerdloff D, Gross K, et al. Delayed placement of an inflatable penile prosthesis is associated with a high complication rate in men with a history of ischemic priapism. The Journal of Sexual Medicine. 2023; 20: 1052–1056.

[15] Salman B, Elsherif E, Elgharabawy M, Badawy A. Early versus delayed penile prosthesis insertion for refractory ischemic priapism. Arab Journal of Urology. 2023; 21: 76–81.

[16] Durazi MH, Jalal AA. Penile prosthesis implantation for treatment of postpriapism erectile dysfunction. Urology Journal. 2008; 5: 115–119.

[17] von Stempel C, Walkden M, Kirkham A. Review of the role of imaging in the diagnosis of priapism. To be published in International Journal of Impotence Research. 2024. [Preprint].

[18] von Stempel C, Shahzad R, Walkden M, Castiglione F, Muneer A, Ralph D, et al. Therapeutic outcomes and analysis of Doppler findings in 25 patients with non-ischemic priapism. International Journal of Impotence Research. 2024; 36: 55–61.

[19] Bertolotto M, Pavlica P, Serafini G, Quaia E, Zappetti R. Painful penile induration: imaging findings and management. Radiographics. 2009; 29: 477–493.

[20] Kirkham APS, Illing RO, Minhas S, Minhas S, Allen C. MR imaging of nonmalignant penile lesions. Radiographics. 2008; 28: 837–853.

[21] Wilson SK, Delk JR, Mulcahy JJ, Cleves M, Salem EA. Upsizing of inflatable penile implant cylinders in patients with corporal fibrosis. J Sex Med. 2006;3(4):736-742. doi:10.1111/j.1743-6109.2006.00263.x.

[22] Ralph DJ, Borley NC, Allen C, Kirkham A, Freeman A, Minhas S, et al. The use of high-resolution magnetic resonance imaging in the management of patients presenting with priapism. BJU International. 2010; 106: 1714–1718.

[23] BAUS Section of Andrology Genitourethral Surgery; Muneer A, Brown G, Dorkin T, Lucky M, Pearcy R, Shabbir M, et al. BAUS consensus document for the management of male genital emergencies: priapism. BJU International. 2018; 121: 835–839.

[24] American Urological Association. Diagnosis and management of priapism: AUA/SMSNA guideline (2022). 2022. Available at: https://www.auanet.org/guidelines-and-quality/guidelines/diagnosis-and-management-of-priapism-aua/smsna-guideline-(2022) (Accessed: 16 February 2023).

[25] Bivalacqua TJ, Allen BK, Brock GB, Broderick GA, Chou R, Kohler TS, et al. The diagnosis and management of recurrent ischemic priapism, priapism in sickle cell patients, and non-ischemic priapism: An AUA/SMSNA guideline. The Journal of Urology. 2022; 208: 43–52.

[26] Paulis G, Romano G, Paulis A. Prevalence, psychological impact, and risk factors of erectile dysfunction in patients with Peyronie’s disease: a retrospective analysis of 309 cases. Research and Reports in Urology. 2016; 8: 95–103.

[27] Mulhall JP, Schiff J, Guhring P. An analysis of the natural history of Peyronie’s disease. The Journal of Urology. 2006; 175: 2115–2118.

[28] Al-Thakafi S, Al-Hathal N. Peyronie’s disease: a literature review on epidemiology, genetics, pathophysiology, diagnosis and work-up. Translational Andrology and Urology. 2016; 5: 280–289.

[29] Milenkovic U, Ilg MM, Cellek S, Albersen M. Pathophysiology and future therapeutic perspectives for resolving fibrosis in Peyronie’s disease. Sexual Medicine Reviews. 2019; 7: 679–689.

[30] M Hellstrom WJG, Trost L. Persistent penile abnormalities in men with Peyronie’s disease. Nat Clin Pract Urol. 2006;3(12):634-635. doi:10.1038/ncpuro0629

[31] Azadzoi KM, Schulman RN, Aviram M, Siroky MB. Oxidative stress in arteriogenic erectile dysfunction: prophylactic role of antioxidants. The Journal of Urology. 2005; 174: 386–393.

[32] Gonzalez-Cadavid NF, Rajfer J. Therapy of erectile dysfunction. Endocrine. 2004; 23: 167–176.

[33] Khera M, Bella A, Karpman E, Brant W, Christine B, Kansas B, et al. Penile prosthesis implantation in patients with Peyronie’s disease: results of the PROPPER study demonstrates a decrease in patient-reported depression. The Journal of Sexual Medicine. 2018; 15: 786–788.

[34] Zhao S, Wu X, Zhang Y, Zhang C. Role of shear wave elastography in the diagnosis of Peyronie disease. Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine. 2024; 43: 397–403.

[35] Kalokairinou K, Konstantinidis C, Domazou M, Kalogeropoulos T, Kosmidis P, Gekas A. US imaging in Peyronie’s disease. Journal of Clinical Imaging Science. 2012; 2: 63.

[36] Pawłowska E, Bianek-Bodzak A. Imaging modalities and clinical assessment in men affected with Peyronie’s disease. Polish Journal of Radiology. 2011; 76: 33–37.

[37] Parmar M, Masterson JM, Masterson TA 3rd. The role of imaging in the diagnosis and management of Peyronie’s disease. Current Opinion in Urology. 2020; 30: 283–289.

[38] Aversa A, Crafa A, Greco EA, Chiefari E, Brunetti A, La Vignera S. The penile duplex ultrasound: how and when to perform it? Andrology. 2021; 9: 1457–1466.

[39] Varela CG, Yeguas LAM, Rodríguez IC, Vila MDD. Penile doppler ultrasound for erectile dysfunction: technique and interpretation. AJR. American Journal of Roentgenology. 2020; 214: 1112–1121.

[40] Liu Y, Zheng D, Liu X, Shi X, Shu S, Li J. Ultrasound on erect penis improves plaque identification in patients with Peyronie’s disease. Frontiers in Pharmacology. 2019; 10: 312.

[41] Wilkins CJ, Sriprasad S, Sidhu PS. Colour doppler ultrasound of the penis. Clinical Radiology. 2003; 58: 514–523.

[42] Schaeffer EM, Jarow JP, Vrablic J, Jarow JP. Duplex ultrasonography detects clinically significant anomalies of penile arterial vasculature affecting surgical approach to penile straightening. Urology. 2006; 67: 166–169.

[43] Lindquist CM, Nikolaidis P, Mittal PK, Miller FH. MRI of the penis. Abdom Radiol N Y. 2020;45(7):2001-2017. doi:10.1007/s00261-019-02301-y

[44] von Stempel C, Walkden M. Duplex ultrasonography and its role in the assessment of male sexual dysfunction. In Minhas S, Mulhall J (eds.) Male sexual dysfunction: a clinical Guide (pp. 91–101). 1st edn. John Wiley & Sons Ltd.: Newark. 2017.

[45] Levine L, Rybak J, Corder C, Farrel MR. Peyronie’s disease plaque calcification—prevalence, time to identification, and development of a new grading classification. The Journal of Sexual Medicine. 2013; 10: 3121–3128.

[46] Lindquist CM, Nikolaidis P, Mittal PK, Miller FH. MRI of the penis. Abdominal Radiology. 2020; 45: 2001–2017.

[47] Hauck EW, Hackstein N, Vosshenrich R, Diemer T, Schmelz HU, Bschleipfer T, et al. Diagnostic value of magnetic resonance imaging in Peyronie’s disease—a comparison both with palpation and ultrasound in the evaluation of plaque formation. European Urology. 2003; 43: 293–300.

[48] Abualruz AR, O’Malley R, Ponnatapura J, Holbert BL, Whitworth P, Tappouni R, et al. MRI of common penile pathologies and penile prostheses. Abdominal Radiology. 2020; 45: 2825–2839.

[49] Helweg G, Judmaier W, Buchberger W, Wicke K, Oberhauser H, Knapp R, et al. Peyronie’s disease: MR findings in 28 patients. AJR. American Journal of Roentgenology. 1992; 158: 1261–1264.

[50] Pretorius ES, Siegelman ES, Ramchandani P, Banner MP. MR imaging of the penis. Radiogr Rev Publ Radiol Soc N Am Inc. 2001;21 Spec No:S283-298; discussion S298-299. doi:10.1148/radiographics.21.suppl_1.g01oc24s283

[51] Brant MD, Ludlow JK, Mulcahy JJ. The prosthesis salvage operation: immediate replacement of the infected penile prosthesis. The Journal of Urology. 1996; 155: 155–157.

[52] Knoll LD. Penile prosthetic infection: management by delayed and immediate salvage techniques. Urology. 1998; 52: 287–290.

[53] Antonini G, De Berardinis E, Busetto GM, Del Giudice F, Chung BI, Conti SL, et al. Postoperative vacuum therapy following AMSTM LGX 700® inflatable penile prosthesis placement: penile dimension outcomes and overall satisfaction. International Journal of Impotence Research. 2020; 32: 133–139.

[54] Lao M, Graydon RJ, Bieniek JM. Salvage penile prosthetic surgery utilizing temporary malleable implants. Translational Andrology and Urology. 2017; 6: S806–S812.

[55] Adams ES, Tua-Caraccia RD, Lentz AC. Narrative review of immediate salvage for penile prosthesis infection. Translational Andrology and Urology. 2024; 13: 584–595.

[56] Lledó García E, González García FJ, Martínez Holguin E, Hernandez Cavieres J, Polanco Pujol L, Jara Rascón J, et al. Surgical implant options in patients with penile fibrosis due to infection or previous explants. Actas Urologicas Españolas. 2020; 44: 268–275.

[57] Schifano N, Capogrosso P, Cakir OO, Dehò F, Garaffa G. Surgical tips in difficult penile prosthetic surgery: a narrative review. International Journal of Impotence Research. 2023; 35: 690–698.

[58] Montague DK, Angermeier KW. Corporeal excavation: new technique for penile prosthesis implantation in men with severe corporeal fibrosis. Urology. 2006; 67: 1072–1075.

[59] Bertolotto M, Martingano P, Ukmar M. Penile scar and fibrosis. In Bertolotto M (ed.) Color doppler US penis (pp. 153–162). 1st edn. Springer: Berlin, Heidelberg. 2008.

[60] McPhail EF, Nehra A, Bruner BC, Kawashima A, King BF, Kim B. MRI and its role in the evaluation and surgical decision making in patients with challenging IPP presentations: descriptions of MRI findings and algorithm for patient management. BJU International. 2012; 109: 1848–1852.