Magnetic resonance image and the diagnosis of penile prosthesis disturbances. Case Report
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.48193/revistamexicanadeurologa.v83i4.980Keywords:
penile prosthesis, magnetic resonance imaging, erectile dysfunction, diagnosis, complicationsAbstract
Penile prostheses are the third line of treatment for erectile dysfunction. It produces high patient satisfaction. Complications can occur, and the urologist must be prepared to recognize and treat them. Nuclear magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) can be a valuable tool for diagnosis and decision-making.
We report the case of a patient with a penile prosthesis with a complication related to the device, in whom MRI was essential for the assessment, diagnosis, and treatment.
In conclusion, urologists should be familiarized with MRI, an alternative imaging method for diagnosing complications associated with penile implants.
References
Hatzimouratidis K, Amar E, Eardley I, Giuliano F, Hatzichristou D, Montorsi F, et al. Guidelines on male sexual dysfunction: erectile dysfunction and premature ejaculation. Eur Urol. 2010;57(5):804–14. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2010.02.020
Burnett AL, Nehra A, Breau RH, Culkin DJ, Faraday MM, Hakim LS, et al. Erectile Dysfunction: AUA Guideline. Journal of Urology. 2018;200(3):633–41. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2018.05.004
Mobley DF, Khera M, Baum N. Recent advances in the treatment of erectile dysfunction. Postgrad Med J. 2017;93(1105):679–85. doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/postgradmedj-2016-134073
Lee DJ, Najari BB, Davison WL, Al Awamlh BAH, Zhao F, Paduch DA, et al. Trends in the Utilization of Penile Prostheses in the Treatment of Erectile Dysfunction in the United States. The Journal of Sexual Medicine. 2015;12(7):1638–45. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/jsm.12921
McPhail EF, Nehra A, Bruner BC, Kawashima A, King BF, Kim B. MRI and its role in the evaluation and surgical decision making in patients with challenging IPP presentations: descriptions of MRI findings and algorithm for patient management: challenges with inflatable penile prostheses. BJU International. 2012;109(12):1848–52. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410x.2011.10683.x
Akakpo W, Pineda MA, Burnett AL. Critical Analysis of Satisfaction Assessment After Penile Prosthesis Surgery. Sexual Medicine Reviews. 2017;5(2):244–51. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sxmr.2017.01.001
Selph JP, Carson CC. Penile Prosthesis Infection: Approaches to Prevention and Treatment. Urologic Clinics of North America. 2011;38(2):227–35. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ucl.2011.02.007
Scherzer ND, Dick B, Gabrielson AT, Alzweri LM, Hellstrom WJG. Penile Prosthesis Complications: Planning, Prevention, and Decision Making. Sexual Medicine Reviews. 2019;7(2):349–59. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sxmr.2018.04.002
Ramanathan S, Bertolotto M, Shamsodini A, Heidous M, Dogra V, Ramchandani P, et al. Comprehensive Multimodality Imaging Review of Complications of Penile Prostheses. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2018;210(6):1200–7. doi: https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.17.18943
Moncada I, Ascensios J, López I, Subirá D, Krisnappa P. Complicaciones intraoperatorias y postoperatorias de la cirugía de prótesis de pene. Diagnóstico y tratamiento. Actas Urológicas Españolas. 2020;44(5):357–66. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acuro.2020.01.014
Wilson SK, Cleves MA, Delk JR. Comparison of mechanical reliability of original and enhanced mentor* Alpha I penile prosthesis. Journal of Urology. 1999;162(3 Part 1):715–8. doi: https://doi.org/10.1097/00005392-199909010-00022
Sadeghi-Nejad H, Sharma A, Irwin RJ, Wilson SK, Delk JR. Reservoir herniation as a complication of three-piece penile prosthesis insertion. Urology. 2001;57(1):142–5. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/s0090-4295(00)00864-5
Hartman RP, Kawashima A, Takahashi N, LeRoy AJ, King BF. Inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP): diagnosis of complications. Abdom Radiol (NY). 2016;41(6):1187–96. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-016-0686-y
Aguila F, Vinay J, Palma C. Prótesis de pene: una solución efectiva. Rev Chil Urol. 2015;80(2):69–71.
Gallo Vallejo FJ, Ruiz VG. Diagnóstico. Estudio radiológico. Ecografía, tomografía computarizada y resonancia magnética. Atención Primaria. 2014;46:21–8. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/s0212-6567(14)70040-x
Thiel DD, Broderick GA, Bridges M. Utility of magnetic resonance imaging in evaluating inflatable penile prosthesis malfunction and complaints. Int J Impot Res. 2003;15(S5):S155–61. doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.ijir.3901094
Chorney ET, Ramchandani P, Jaffe WI, Siegelman ES. CT and MR Imaging Features of Artificial Urinary Sphincters, Penile Prostheses, and Other Devices in the Male Lower Genitourinary Tract. RadioGraphics. 2018;38(3):794–805. doi: https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.2018170087
Pacheco Usmayo A, Torregrosa Andrés A, Flores Méndez J, Luján Marco S, Rogel Bertó R. Utilidad de la resonancia magnética en la valoración postquirúrgica de pacientes con prótesis hidráulica de pene. Radiología. 2017;59(6):504–10. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rx.2017.04.004
Levin MF, Munk PL, Vellet AD, Chin JL. Self-contained, inflatable penile prosthesis: Magnetic resonance appearance. Australas Radiol. 1994;38(1):51–3. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1440-1673.1994.tb00126.x
Labra W. A, González C. F, Barahona Z. D, Fuentes S. C. Avances imagenológicos en urología. In: Manual de Urología. 2nd ed. Chile: Sociedad Chilena de Urología
Moncada I, Jara J, Cabello R, Monzo JI, Hernandez C. Radiological assessment of penile prosthesis: the role of magnetic resonance imaging. World J Urol. 2004;22(5):371–7. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-004-0427-7
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2023 Revista Mexicana de Urología
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
