Objectives: To evaluate our results with the Essed procedure for the correction of penile curvature, either congenital or due to Peyronie’s disease, and compare it with the data from the literature, both for the Essed and the Nesbit procedure.Methods: From 1991 to 1996 the Essed procedure was performed in 61 patients. 65.6% (n = 40) had congenital deviation and 34.4% (n = 21) suffered from secondary deviation due to Peyronie’s disease. In all patients 2–6 nonabsorbable inverting interrupted sutures were placed bringing the knot between the plicated tunica.Results: Patients’ ages ranged from 15 to 65 (mean 31.3) years and the mean follow–up time was 39.8 (12–75) months. The preoperative penile deviation was between 20 and 90° (mean 47.4°). Eighteen patients (29.5%) had a recurrent deviation following surgery. This failure rate was higher in the patient group with Peyronie’s disease (42.9%) than in the group with congenital deformation (22.5%). Postoperatively, 2 patients (3.3%) with Peyronie’s disease reported de novo erectile dysfunction. Twenty patients (32.8%) complained of persistent discomfort or pain at the area of the still palpable plication sutures, but this inhibited sexual intercourse only in 1 case. 45.9% stated penile shortening after surgery but only 21.3% felt bothered by this.Conclusion: The results reported are in accordance with the literature showing a higher recurrence rate of the deviation with the Essed compared to the Nesbit procedure. For both methods the risk of recurrent disease is higher in patients with Peyronie’s disease and with both techniques, an equally low incidence of erectile dysfunction is evident. However, since with the Essed technique one third of all patients complained of discomfort from the nonabsorbable sutures, the Nesbit procedure seems to be superior.

Keywords:
Penile deviation, Peyronie’s disease, Essed procedure, Nesbit procedure
1.
Nesbit RM: Congenital curvature of the phallus: Report of three cases with description of corrective operation. J Urol 1965;93:230–232.
2.
Yachia D: Modified corporoplasty for the treatment of penile curvature. J Urol 1990;143: 80–82.
3.
Essed E, Schröder FH: New surgical treatment of Peyronie disease. Urology 1985;25:582– 587.
4.
Ebbehoj J, Metz P: New operation for ‘krummerik’ (penile curvature). Urology 1985;26: 76–78.
5.
Riedi E, Hauri D: Die kongenitale Penisschaftverkrümmung. Helv Chir Acta 1981;48: 339–343.
6.
Devine CJ, Horton CE: Surgical treatment of Peyronie’s disease with a dermal graft. J Urol 1974;111:44–50.
7.
Jordan GH: Symposium on Peyronie`s disease Society of Impotence Research meeting at the 1997 American Urological Association meeting. Int J Impot Res 1998;10:133–134.
8.
Schreiter F: Chirurgische Therapie der Penisschaftverkrümmung bei kongenitaler Penisdeviation und Induratio penis plastica. Helv Chir Acta 1991;58:243–256.
9.
Ralph DJ, Al–Akraa M, Pryor JP: The Nesbit operation for Peyronie’s disease: 16–year experience. J Urol 1995;154:1362–1363.
10.
Levine LA, Lenting EL: A surgical algorithm for the treatment of Peyronie’s disease. J Urol 1997;158:2149–2152.
11.
Nooter RI, Bosch JLHR, Schröder FH: Peyronie’sdisease and congenital penile curvature: Long–term results of operative treatment with the plication procedure. Br J Urol 1994; 74:497–500.
12.
Knispel HH, Gonnermann D, Huland H: Modified surgical technique to correct congenital acquired penile curvature. Eur Urol 1991;20: 107–112.
13.
Ebbehoj J, Metz P: Congenital penile angulation. Br J Urol 1987;60:264–266.
14.
Reis M, Bürger RA, Derscham W, von Vietsch H, Engelmann U: Treatment of congenital penile curvature: An alternative to the Nesbit’s operation. Urol Int 1988;43:341–343.
15.
Mufti GR, Aitchison M, Bramwell SP, Paterson PJ, Scott R: Corporeal plication for surgical correction of Peyronie’sdisease. J Urol 1990;144:281–283.
16.
Erpenbach K, Rothe H, Derschum W: The penile plication procedure: An alternative method for straightening penile deviation. J Urol 1991; 146:1276–1278.
17.
Klevmark B, Andersen M, Schultz A, Talseth T: Congenital and acquired curvature of the penis treated surgically by plication of the tunica albuginea. Br J Urol 1994;74:501–506.
18.
Kummerling S, Schubert J: Peyronie’sdisease. Investigation of staging, erectile failure and operative management. Int Urol Nephrol 1995; 27:629–637.
19.
Geertsen UA, Brok KE, Andersen B, Nielsen HV: Peyronie curvature treated by plication of the penile fasciae. Br J Urol 1996;77:733–735.
20.
Poulsen J, Kirkeby HJ: Treatment of penile curvature: A retrospective study of 175 patients operated with plication of the tunica albuginea or with the Nesbit procedure. Br J Urol 1995;75:370–374.
21.
Richter S, Shalev M, Nissenkorn I: Correction of congenital or acquired penile curvature through a simple corporoplication technique. Int J Impot Res 1996;8:255–258.
22.
Vatne V, Hoeisaeter PA: Functional results after operations of penile deviations: an institutional experience. Scand J Urol Nephrol 1996; 179(suppl):151–154.
23.
Thiounn N, Missirliu A, Zerbib M, Larrouy M, Dje K, Flam T, Debré B: Corporeal plication for surgical correction of penile curvature. Eur Urol 1998;33:401–404.
24.
Padilla Nieva J, Marin Lafuente JC, Lekumberri Castanos D, Albisu Tristan A, Acha Perez M, Pertusa Pena C: Albuginea plication in the treatment of penile curvature (in Spanish). Actas Urol Esp 1998;22:853–856.
25.
Brake M, Keller H, Lamadé F, Groh R, Horsch R: Operative correction of penile deviation with the Nesbit procedure and with Schroeder–Essed technique. Urologe [A] 1999;38:264– 269.
26.
Benejam Gual J, Rodriguez Vela L, Garcia– Miralles Gravalos R, Gonzalvo Ibarra A, Rioja Sanz LA: Treatment by a modified plication of the tunica albuginea in patients with congenital penile curvature (in Spanish). Actas Urol Esp 1999;23:36–42.
27.
Kelami A: Congenital penile deviation and its treatment with the Nesbit–Kelami technique. Br J Urol 1987;60:261–263.
28.
Porst H: Corporoplasty in congenital and acquired penile deviations: Technique and outcome in 62 patients. Urologe [A] 1989;28: 168–171.
29.
Andrews HO, Al–Akraa M, Pryor JP, Ralph DJ: The Nesbit operation for congenital curvature of the penis. Int J Impot Res 1999;11:119– 122.
2000
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.