Table 1. Surgical strategies for length preservation or restoration in patients with Peyronie’s disease.
| Procedure | Study | No. of patients | Follow-up (months) | Length gained or percent length preserved | Satisfaction† |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Without penile prosthesis | |||||
| Partial incision and grafting (PIG)* | El-Sakka et al. 1998 | 112 | 18 | 83% | 92% |
| Kalsi et al. 2005 | 113 | 12 | 71% | 93% | |
| The Egydio technique-PIG | Egydio et al. 2004 | 33 | 20 | 2.5 cm (range, 1.5–3.5 cm) | – |
| Sansalone et al. 2011 | 157 | 20 | 2.5 cm (range, 1.5–3.5 cm) | 97% | |
| PIG with corporal sparing | Austoni et al. 2005 | 145 | 13 | 1.3 cm (range, 0.8–2.0 cm) | 76% |
| Zucci et al. 2013 | 60 | 40 | 2.0 cm (range, 1.2–2.3 cm) | – | |
| With penile prosthesis | |||||
| Subcoronal IPP placement | Weinberg et al. 2016 | 200 | 6 | 0.6 cm | – |
| IPP placement with corporal sparing | Moncada et al. 2010 | 100 | 6 | 1.1 cm# | – |
| Circumferential incision and grafting | Sansalone et al. 2012 | 23 | 22 | 2.8 cm (range, 2.2–4.5 cm) | 90% |
| Egydio et al. 2012 | 104 | 18 | 3.6 cm (range, 0.7–2.5 cm) | 95% | |
| The sliding technique | Rolle et al. 2015 | 28 | 37 | 3.2 cm (range, 2.5–4.0 cm) | 95% |
| MoST and MuST | Egydio et al. 2015 | 143 | 6 | 3.1 cm | – |
| Weinberg et al. 2015 | 40 | 9 | 2.5 cm | – | |
The above table summarizes techniques which have been used to consistently increase or preserve length in Peyronie’s disease. †, satisfaction refers to satisfaction regarding length, except in Sansalone 2011 which refers to partner satisfaction, Austoni 2005 and El-Sakka 1998 which are overall satisfaction, and Kalsi which is physician-graded satisfaction; *, PIG has been explored in many studies which are detailed in the subheading “Plaque Incision or Partial Excision and Grafting”. Two of the largest studies were chosen for this table in the interest of brevity; #, length gain was 1.1 cm, but differential length gain was 2.3 cm as compared with the control group (see text).