Comparative outcomes and patient satisfaction rates of three tunical shortening techniques used for the correction of penile curvatures

A retrospective, single-center study

Authors

  • Yunus Çolakoğlu Başakşehir City Hospital, İstanbul, Turkey
  • Muharrem Baturu
  • Ömer Bayrak
  • Özlem Başgut
  • Ahmet Erbağcı

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5489/cuaj.9292

Keywords:

Penile curvature, penile shortening technique, 16-dot penile plication, Nesbit corporoplasty, Yachia corporoplasty

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to compare clinical outcomes and patient satisfaction rates after application of three different tunical shortening techniques — Yachia corporoplasty, Nesbit corporoplasty, and 16-dot plication — in patients undergoing surgery for congenital and acquired penile curvatures.

METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated the postoperative outcomes of 68 patients who underwent penile curvature repair using one of three different surgical techniques between 2010 and 2023 and had been followed up for at least one year. Complications (if any) (e.g., penile shortening, loss of penile sensation, recurrence, presence of nodules, painful erection) and surgical satisfaction levels were assessed through medical records and telephone interviews.

RESULTS: The mean age of the patients included in the study was 37.34±16.81 years. Yachia corporoplasty was performed in 27 (39.70%), Nesbit corporoplasty in 15 (22.06%), and 16-dot penile plication in 26 (38.24%) patients. There was no difference between the techniques in terms of surgical complications, such as shortening of penile length (p=0.096), loss of penile sensation (p=0.892), recurrence (p=0.302), and presence of nodules at the operation site (p=0.239), while painful erection was most common in the Nesbit corporoplasty group (n=5, 33.33%) (p=0.020). Postoperative dissatisfaction rate was highest in the 16-dot penile plication group (n=6, 23.07%) (p=0.557). There was a negative correlation between satisfaction level and recurrence in the 16-dot penile plication and corporoplasty groups (r=-0.516, p=0.006; r=-0.659, p<0.001, respectively). In addition, a negative correlation was observed between satisfaction levels, shortening of penile length, and presence of nodules in the corporoplasty group (r=-0.482, p=0.001; r=-0.320, p=0.044, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS: In patients who underwent penile curvature surgery using penile shortening techniques, low complication and high satisfaction rates were observed in all three corporoplasty techniques. Recurrence, presence of palpable nodule(s), and shortening of penile length are important parameters affecting the level of satisfaction.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Downloads

Published

2025-07-28

How to Cite

Çolakoğlu, Y. ., Baturu, M., Bayrak, Ömer, Başgut, Özlem, & Erbağcı, A. (2025). Comparative outcomes and patient satisfaction rates of three tunical shortening techniques used for the correction of penile curvatures: A retrospective, single-center study. Canadian Urological Association Journal, 19(11), E398–403. https://doi.org/10.5489/cuaj.9292

Issue

Vol. 19 No. 11 (2025): CUAJ November

Section

Original Research

License

You, the Author(s), assign your copyright in and to the Article to the Canadian Urological Association. This means that you may not, without the prior written permission of the CUA:

  • Post the Article on any Web site
  • Translate or authorize a translation of the Article
  • Copy or otherwise reproduce the Article, in any format, beyond what is permitted under Canadian copyright law, or authorize others to do so
  • Copy or otherwise reproduce portions of the Article, including tables and figures, beyond what is permitted under Canadian copyright law, or authorize others to do so.

The CUA encourages use for non-commercial educational purposes and will not unreasonably deny any such permission request.

You retain your moral rights in and to the Article. This means that the CUA may not assert its copyright in such a way that would negatively reflect on your reputation or your right to be associated with the Article.

The CUA also requires you to warrant the following:

  • That you are the Author(s) and sole owner(s), that the Article is original and unpublished and that you have not previously assigned copyright or granted a licence to any other third party;
  • That all individuals who have made a substantive contribution to the article are acknowledged;
  • That the Article does not infringe any proprietary right of any third party and that you have received the permissions necessary to include the work of others in the Article; and
  • That the Article does not libel or violate the privacy rights of any third party.