Phallus Preservation in Penile Cancer Surgery: Patient-reported Aesthetic & Functional Outcomes - 08/06/21
Résumé |
Objective |
To assess patient-reported outcomes of oncoplastic penile reconstruction using standardized questionnaires. Whilst organ-preserving penile cancer surgery has evolved, aiming to preserve genital function, reduce psychological morbidity of radical penectomy, and maximise patient quality of life, few studies have evaluated patients’ final perceptions.
Methods |
Following ethical approval, patients post partial/radical glansectomy with reconstruction 2016-2019, under a single surgeon, were identified. Patients were posted a modified Index of Male Genital Image, the IIEF-5, a customised questionnaire exploring outcomes of urinary and sensory function and the EORTC QLQ-C30 to complete and return. Questionnaires were nonidentifiable, however study ID linked responses to the procedure performed.
Results |
A total of 130 questionnaires were received from 35 patients post penile reconstruction, giving a response rate of 71.4% (35/49). Mean time from surgery was 22 months (4-51), and mean age 61 years (31–79). The majority (82.4%, n = 28) were satisfied or felt neutral about the appearance of their genitalia. High satisfaction with postprocedure urinary function was reported; 85.3% (29/34) could void from a standing position and 79.4% (27/34) reported little or no spraying of urine. Nineteen patients (55.89%) were sexually active, with mean IIEF-5 scores of 14.9 (5-25) (partial glansectomy) and 15.8 (5-25) (radical glansectomy). Mean QoL over past week on 7-point EORTC QLQ-C30 scale was 5.88 (3-7).
Conclusion |
We report good aesthetic and functional outcomes in a unique study exploring penile cancer surgery patient-reported outcome measures. These results strongly support phallus-preserving phallic-preserving strategies as the standard of care in eligible patients undergoing penile cancer surgery.
Le texte complet de cet article est disponible en PDF.Plan
Previously Submitted: Never |
|
Declarations: |
|
Funding: Nil |
|
Conflicts of interest/Competing interests: Nil |
|
Ethics approval: Approved by Research Ethics Committee, University Hospital Waterford |
|
Consent: All patients consented to participation |
|
Availability of data and material: Raw data available upon request |
|
Code availability: N/A |
|
Authors’ Contributions: All authors made a significant and relevant contribution to this manuscript |
Vol 152
P. 60-66 - juin 2021 Retour au numéroBienvenue sur EM-consulte, la référence des professionnels de santé.
L’accès au texte intégral de cet article nécessite un abonnement.
Déjà abonné à cette revue ?