Ren Li-Jiang, Wang Yong-Chuan, Ren An-Ji, Wang Zhi-Qiang, Guo Kai
Department of Urology, Shouguang Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Shouguang, Shandong 262700, China.
NO.2 Department of Urology, Weifang Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Weifang, Shandong 261041, China.
Zhonghua Nan Ke Xue. 2018 Feb;24(2):152-155.
To explore the treatment of penile incarceration with a metal ring.
Based on our experience in the successful management of a case of penile incarceration with a metal ring by coiling and bloodletting from the corpus cavernosum, we reviewed the relevant literature and analyzed the indications, advantages and disadvantages of different methods for the treatment of penile incarceration with a circular foreign body.
The clamping and cutting methods were non-invasive, fast, effective, and with few complications, which could be applied to the treatment of penile strangulation at all levels. However, clamping was not desirable enough for a hard metal ring and the cutting method took a longer time and might increase the risk of unnecessary damage to the penile skin, urethra and cavernous body. Prepuce edema decompression and the thin tube-coiling method, with the advantages of minimal invasiveness, simple operation and no need of special tools, were suitable for penile strangulation injury under level 3, but might cause penile skin injury and potential postoperative erectile dysfunction. Surgical resection, as an invasive procedure, could be applied to severe penile strangulation at level 4 or 5.
The principle for the treatment of penile incarceration with a circular foreign body is to remove the foreign object as soon as possible and not to add secondary damage.
