Search

Objectives: To determine the surgical and oncologic outcomes of salvage radical prostatectomy (sRP) after FT failure. Materials and methods: Patients who consecutively underwent primary RP or sRP after FT failure between 2008 and 2022 were retrospectively selected. Primary or sRP were performed with either a robot-assisted or open approach. All surgeries were performed by surgeons with experience of ≥ 500 cases. Biochemical recurrence-free survival (BFS), intra- and postoperative surgical and functional outcomes were assessed. To evaluate the impact of surgical setting, propensity score (PS) matching was performed. Results: 80 patients received sRP. Outcomes were analyzed using PS-matched cohorts (203 RPs vs. 68 sRPs). After a median follow-up of 25.4 months, sRP and RP had equal BFS (24mo-BFS: 72.4% vs. 76.0% (p = 0.8)). No statistically significant differences were found between sRP and RP in terms of median operative time (OT) (171 min vs. 168 min), estimated blood loss (EBL) (500 ml vs. 500 ml), length of hospital stay (LOS) (7 days vs. 7 days) and time to catheter removal (11 days vs. 11 days) and 1-year continence rates (all standardized mean differences ≤ 0.1). The main limitation is the retrospective study design. Conclusion: In the hands of experienced surgeons, sRP after FT offered comparable surgical and oncologic outcomes as RP in a primary setting. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Literature on priapism as a concomitant manifestation of COVID-19 infection is scarce since less than 10 cases are reported. It is crucial to determine whether priapism in a COVID-19 patient is related to the infection itself or to the ongoing therapy, especially in those critically ill. Our study aims to create an alert for all physicians faced with the management of priapism in SARS-CoV-2 patients. We tried to explore any potential leading factors presenting a case of priapism arising during COVID-19 pneumonia, and we reviewed the current literature available on this topic. Case Presentation: We reported the case of a 62-year-old man with severe COVID-19 pneumonia complicated by acute respiratory distress syndrome who developed ischemic priapism during his stay in intensive unit care. Corporal aspiration was performed with injection of 200 μg of intracavernosal phenylephrine resulting in detumescence. After recovery, the patient reported complete erectile dysfunction. Conclusion: The etiopathogenetic mechanism of priapism remains not completely clear. The most frequently hypothesized cause is the prothrombotic state associated with the infection. Further elements including the drugs administered during the infection may play a crucial role. Further studies are needed to obtain stronger evidence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: penile curvature is a rare condition, classified as congenital or acquired (Peyronie’s disease) (PD). Surgical correction is the standard treatment. It’s common practice to associate circumcision with penile de-gloving to prevent complications. In this paper we evaluate the feasibility of penile surgery avoiding circumcision. Materials and methods: patients presenting with penile curvature were treated using a modified Nesbit procedure. Patients were divided into group A if they opted for a prepuce-sparing surgery and the others into group B. Patients were evaluated pre and postoperatively and postoperative complications were assessed. The 5-item International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF-5) was administered before and 6 months after surgery and we compared the difference of mean value using T-Test. Results: Group A and B were made of 53 and 16 patients respectively. Median age was 59 years [interquartile range (IQR) 12] in A and 62 (IQR 9) in B (p = 0.2). Median curvature was 40° (IQR 40°) in A and 40 ° (IQR 30°) in B (p = 0.62). Mean difference between pre- and post-operative IEFF was 1.9 ± 2 in A and 2.6 ± 2.1 in B (p = 0.36). Conclusions: According to our experience, surgical correction of penile curvature without performing circumcision could be a safe and feasible strategy. We recommend performing circumcision only in patients who present with pre-operative phimosis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]