Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Plication techniques in Peyronie’s disease: new developments

Subjects

Abstract

To date, surgical correction remains the gold standard for patients with stable Peyronie’s disease (PD) due to its high efficacy and low morbidity. Among the surgical procedures, penile plication (PP) can be offered to men who have adequate erectile function and penile length (>13 cm), with a curvature <60° and a predicted shortening of maximum 20% of the penis. The aim of this paper is to review the new developments that have emerged in the last years about the use of PP in patients with PD. A nonsystematic review of the literature was carried out searching in the PubMed and EMBASE databases from January 01, 2009 to April 01, 2019 including the words ‘Peyronie’, ‘penile curvature’, ‘penile induration’, ‘plication’, and ‘plicature’. New developments in PP in the last 10 years include avoiding degloving by using a penoscrotal incision, a new mathematical model to predict loss of length after PP, a wider range of indications including patients with severe (≥60°) or complex curvatures, burying knots to avoid later discomfort, and thinning or incising the plaque to prevent excessive shortening. PP is a well-founded procedure with great results in appropriately selected patients. Given the lack of any prospective randomized trial, no clear recommendation can be made of one technique over another.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Rent or buy this article

Get just this article for as long as you need it

$39.95

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1

References

  1. Chung E, Ralph D, Kagioglu A, Garaffa G, Shamsodini A, Bivalacqua T, et al. Evidence-based management guidelines on peyronie’s disease. J Sex Med. 2016;13:905–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Brock G, Hsu GL, Nunes L, von Heyden B, Lue TF. The anatomy of the tunica albuginea in the normal penis and Peyronie’s disease. J Urol. 1997;157:276–81.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Professionals S-O. EAU guidelines: male sexual dysfunction. Uroweb. https://uroweb.org/guideline/male-sexual-dysfunction/.

  4. Mobley EM, Fuchs ME, Myers JB, Brant WO. Update on plication procedures for Peyronie’s disease and other penile deformities. Ther Adv Urol. 2012;4:335–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Yafi FA, Hatzichristodoulou G, Knoedler CJ, Trost LW, Sikka SC, Hellstrom WJG. Comparative analysis of tunical plication vs. intralesional injection therapy for ventral Peyronie’s disease. J Sex Med. 2015;12:2492–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Gelbard M, Goldstein I, Hellstrom WJG, McMahon CG, Smith T, Tursi J, et al. Clinical efficacy, safety and tolerability of collagenase clostridium histolyticum for the treatment of peyronie disease in 2 large double-blind, randomized, placebo controlled phase 3 studies. J Urol. 2013;190:199–207.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Cordon BH, Sundaram V, Hofer MD, Kavoussi NL, Scott JM, Morey AF. Penile plication as salvage strategy for refractory Peyronie’s disease deformities. Urol Pract. 2016;4:149–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Reddy RS, McKibben MJ, Fuchs JS, Shakir N, Scott J, Morey AF. Plication for severe Peyronie’s deformities has similar long-term outcomes to milder cases. J Sex Med. 2018;15:1498–505.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Garcia-Gomez B, Ralph D, Levine L, Moncada-Iribarren I, Djinovic R, Albersen M, et al. Grafts for Peyronie’s disease: a comprehensive review. Andrology. 2018;6:117–26.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Nesbit RM. Congenital curvature of the phallus: report of three cases with description of corrective operation. J Urol. 1965;93:230–2.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Pryor JP, Fitzpatrick JM. A new approach to the correction of the penile deformity in Peyronie’s disease. J Urol. 1979;122:622–3.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Yachia D. Modified corporoplasty for the treatment of penile curvature. J Urol. 1990;143:80–2.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Rehman J, Benet A, Minsky LS, Melman A. Results of surgical treatment for abnormal penile curvature: Peyronie’s disease and congenital deviation by modified Nesbit plication (tunical shaving and plication). J Urol. 1997;157:1288–91.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Essed E, Schroeder FH. New surgical treatment for Peyronie disease. Urology. 1985;25:582–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Baskin LS, Duckett JW. Dorsal tunica albuginea plication for hypospadias curvature. J Urol. 1994;151:1668–71.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Baskin LS, Lue TF. The correction of congenital penile curvature in young men. Br J Urol. 1998;81:895–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Gholami SS, Lue TF. Correction of penile curvature using the 16-dot plication technique: a review of 132 patients. J Urol. 2002;167:2066–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Langston JP, Carson CC. Peyronie disease: plication or grafting. Urol Clin North Am. 2011;38:207–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Cantoro U, Polito M, Catanzariti F, Montesi L, Lacetera V, Muzzonigro G. Penile plication for Peyronie’s disease: our results with mean follow-up of 103 months on 89 patients. Int J Impot Res. 2014;26:156–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Seveso M, Melegari S, De Francesco O, Macchi A, Romero Otero J, Taverna G, et al. Surgical correction of Peyronie’s disease via tunica albuginea plication: long-term follow-up. Andrology. 2018;6:47–52.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Parnham Arie S, Parnham Stewart M, Pearce Ian. A mathematical model to predict the loss of length in patients undergoing plication corporoplasty for Peyronie’s disease. J Clin Urol. 2017;10:5–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Hudak SJ, Morey AF, Adibi M, Bagrodia A. Favorable patient reported outcomes after penile plication for wide array of peyronie disease abnormalities. J Urol. 2013;189:1019–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Dugi DD, Morey AF. Penoscrotal plication as a uniform approach to reconstruction of penile curvature. BJU Int. 2010;105:1440–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Kadioglu A, Küçükdurmaz F, Sanli O. Current status of the surgical management of Peyronie’s disease. Nat Rev Urol. 2011;8:95–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Adibi M, Hudak SJ, Morey AF. Penile plication without degloving enables effective correction of complex Peyronie’s deformities. Urology. 2012;79:831–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Chung PH, Tausch TJ, Simhan J, Scott JF, Morey AF. Dorsal plication without degloving is safe and effective for correcting ventral penile deformities. Urology. 2014;84:1228–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Kadirov R, Coskun B, Kaygisiz O, Gunseren KO, Kordan Y, Yavascaoglu I, et al. Penile plication with or without degloving of the penis results in similar outcomes. Sex Med. 2017;5:e142–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Salem EA. Modified 16-Dot plication technique for correction of penile curvature: prevention of knot-related complications. Int J Impot Res. 2018;30:117–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. van der Horst C, Martínez Portillo FJ, Melchior D, Bross S, Alken P, Juenemann K-P. Polytetrafluoroethylene versus polypropylene sutures for Essed-Schroeder tunical plication. J Urol. 2003;170:472–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Shefi S, Pinthus JH, Mor Y, Raviv G, Ramon J, Hanani JI. To bury the knot, then, is better than not. Urology. 2008;71:1206–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Schultheiss D, Meschi MR, Hagemann J, Truss MC, Stief CG, Jonas U. Congenital and acquired penile deviation treated with the essed plication method. Eur Urol. 2000;38:167–71.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Papagiannopoulos D, Phelps J, Yura E, Levine LA. Surgical outcomes from limiting the use of nonabsorbable suture in tunica albuginea plication for Peyronie’s disease. Int J Impot Res. 2017;29:258–61.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Hamed HA, Roaiah M, Hassanin AM, Zaazaa AA, Fawzi M. A new technique, combined plication-incision (CPI), for correction of penile curvature. Int Braz J Urol J Braz Soc Urol. 2018;44:180–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Ding S, Lü J, Zhang H, Wei L, Ding K. A novel modification of tunical plication by plaque thinning: long-term results in treating penile curvature of Peyronie’s disease. Int Urol Nephrol. 2010;42:597–602.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Shin SH, Jeong HG, Park JJ, Chae JY, Kim JW, Oh MM, et al. The outcome of multiple slit on plaque with plication technique for the treatment of Peyronie’s disease. World J Mens Health. 2016;34:20–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Javier Romero-Otero.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

García-Gómez, B., González-Padilla, D.A., Alonso-Isa, M. et al. Plication techniques in Peyronie’s disease: new developments. Int J Impot Res 32, 30–36 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41443-019-0204-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41443-019-0204-1

Search

Quick links