How to cite item

Preventing the need for revision surgery after penile plication reconstruction of Peyronie’s deformities

	author = {Rohit S. Reddy and Yooni A. Yi and Jorge Fuentes and Rachel L. Bergeson and Michael T. Davenport and Allen F. Morey},
	title = {Preventing the need for revision surgery after penile plication reconstruction of Peyronie’s deformities},
	journal = {Translational Andrology and Urology},
	volume = {9},
	number = {1},
	year = {2019},
	keywords = {},
	abstract = {Background: The need for repeat penile plication (PP) for persistent penile deformity has previously been associated with (I) poor initial erectile response to intracavernosal injection (ICI), (II) an inadequate number of corrective sutures, and (III) a lack of sutures along the proximal shaft of the penis. We present our current experience with PP after implementing corrective measures to assess whether our need for revision surgery was reduced.
Methods: We performed a retrospective review of patients who underwent PP for Peyronie’s disease (PD) between 2009–2018 and had a minimum follow-up of 6 months. We updated our surgical technique in 2016 by (I) using supplemental intracorporal saline injections if the initial erection response to prostaglandin E1 injection was inadequate, (II) increasing numbers of corrective plication sutures, and (III) emphasizing more proximal suture placement. Patients were stratified into two groups and outcomes compared (prior technique versus current technique). 
Results: Of 472 PP patients who met inclusion criteria, 340 (72%) plication patients before 2016 were compared to 132 (28%) performed after 2016. The revision rate in the current cohort (1.5%, 2/132) decreased by more than half compared to the previous cohort (3.8%, 13/340). Mean preoperative angle of curvature was similar between the two groups (50.4 vs. 51.4 degrees, P=0.64), while the average residual postoperative degree was smaller in the current group (7.36 vs. 2.14 degrees, P},
	issn = {2223-4691},	url = {}