Introduction Entrapment or strangulation of the penis is a rare emergency situation that can lead to a wide range of vascular and mechanical injuries. Aim The aim of this article is to present our experience dealing with penile strangulation. A review of the literature is also summarized in this report. Current treatment options and outcomes are also evaluated. Methods We performed a computerized MEDLINE search followed by a manual bibliographic review of cross-references. These reports were analyzed and the important findings summarized. Results Penile strangulation has been first time reported in 1755. Since that time, sporadic reports have appeared in the literature describing a variety of foreign bodies on the penis that have in common only the property of circularity. We noted motives, types of objects, types of strangulation, symptomatology, trauma grades, diagnoses, including psychological involvement, as well as possible treatment options. Furthermore, two cases of penile strangulation from our clinical practice are presented involving different degrees of vascular insult leading to different pathogenesis, clinical presentation, and surgical approach. Conclusion Penile strangulation is an unusual clinical condition and the consequences can be severe. Penile strangulation could lead to different degrees of vascular obstruction. Consequently, several clinical syndromes can occur: from mild nonsignificant vascular obstruction that resolves after decompression to severe gangrene of the penis accompanied with impaired renal function. The most common motive associated with foreign bodies on the penis is sexual or erotic in nature. The choice of method for removal depends upon type, size, incarceration time, trauma grade, and availability of the equipment. Prompt diagnosis and early treatment are essential to avoid the potential complications of ischemic necrosis and autoamputation.

Our results concur with other retrospective reviews comparing laparoscopic and open adrenalectomy, demonstrating unequivocal advantages in terms of reduced length of hospital stay, blood loss, return of bowel function, functional recovery and post-operative morbidity.

We show that our results with urinary diversion are promising in patients requiring radical cystoprostatectomy. The two methods preferred in our institution offer a sufficient protection of the upper urinary tract with a low complication rate, good voiding function and continence.

No abstract

No abstract