In the previous 40 years, nothing changed in the usage of penile implants for the treatment of both erectile dysfunction and Peyronie’s disease, with the main differences being modeling and plaque incision. For a review, researchers examined the history of Peyronie’s disease therapy at the time of penile prosthesis implantation, as well as novel surgical methods that fixed various difficulties that were not addressed by old treatments. Graft material, lengthening treatments, and transcorporal techniques had all shown advancements. The purpose of the surgeries was to restore length as well as rectify curvature. Not unexpectedly, the more elaborate and vigorous the attempt to rectify the curvature, the greater the possibility of problems. While modeling had a low probability of urethral damage, a sophisticated lengthening treatment that included neurovascular bundle and urethral mobilization resulted in the feared consequence of glans necrosis. Meanwhile, transcorporal treatments appeared to provide a more moderate gain in length and curvature restoration while posing fewer dangers than more severe lengthening operations.
The fundamental problem of the traditional treatment of Peyronie’s disease during penile prosthesis, modeling, and plaque incision was that there was frequently no resolution to the penile length—as the operations were performed after the implant had already been placed. Newer lengthening methods were promising, but they came with additional hazards and complexity.
Reference:link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11934-019-0870-z
