Journal of pediatric surgery · 2008
Surgical management of penile amputation in children.
Клинический случайСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Beniamin Francesco, Castagnetti Marco, Rigamonti Waifro
Аннотация
PURPOSE: Penile amputation in children is rare. If the amputated organ cannot be salvaged, standard treatment options include sex reassignment or creation of a penoid with a musculocutaneous flap. We describe our experience with phallic reconstruction after amputation.
METHODS: Between 2005 and 2007, we observed 3 patients with penile amputation. All presented a flat pubic scar and a severe urethral stricture for which urinary diversion had been performed in two. The first step of the procedure was penile augmentation. The latter included dissection and advancement of the residual erectile tissue by either division of the suspensory ligament (n = 2) or detachment of the corpora cavernosa from the pubic bones. Then, meatal advancement was attempted and combined with a staged oral mucosa urethroplasty, if necessary. Finally, skin coverage was achieved using local flaps (n = 2) or a free graft harvested from the inguinal region. In 2 patients, a pseudoglans was sculptured from the pubic scar.
RESULTS: In no case the procedure could be performed in a single stage. In one patient, 2 additional cosmetic revisions were required. Good penile augmentation was achieved in all the 3 cases. All patients presented at least nocturnal erections and reported to be satisfied with the cosmetic results.
CONCLUSIONS: Our experience suggests that an attempt to phallic reconstruction by retrieval of any residual erectile tissue might be worthwhile before embarking on a penile replacement. In a few cases, this may allow recreation of a penis with good cosmesis and function.
METHODS: Between 2005 and 2007, we observed 3 patients with penile amputation. All presented a flat pubic scar and a severe urethral stricture for which urinary diversion had been performed in two. The first step of the procedure was penile augmentation. The latter included dissection and advancement of the residual erectile tissue by either division of the suspensory ligament (n = 2) or detachment of the corpora cavernosa from the pubic bones. Then, meatal advancement was attempted and combined with a staged oral mucosa urethroplasty, if necessary. Finally, skin coverage was achieved using local flaps (n = 2) or a free graft harvested from the inguinal region. In 2 patients, a pseudoglans was sculptured from the pubic scar.
RESULTS: In no case the procedure could be performed in a single stage. In one patient, 2 additional cosmetic revisions were required. Good penile augmentation was achieved in all the 3 cases. All patients presented at least nocturnal erections and reported to be satisfied with the cosmetic results.
CONCLUSIONS: Our experience suggests that an attempt to phallic reconstruction by retrieval of any residual erectile tissue might be worthwhile before embarking on a penile replacement. In a few cases, this may allow recreation of a penis with good cosmesis and function.