JCU - Abstracts of the BAUS 2018 Scientific Meeting - June 2018 - 32

32
P3-3 Glanspexy for floppy glans - outcomes
and patient satisfaction
Skrodzka M1, Blecher G1, Moubasher A1, Johnson M1,
Garaffa G1, Ralph D1
1University College Hospital of London, London, United Kingdom

Introduction: Floppy glans is a known complication of
penile implant surgery. Although glanspexy represents the
only solution when vasoactive drugs are ineffective, very
little is available in the literature regarding the outcomes
from this procedure.
Methods: The notes of patients who have undergone
penile prosthesis implantation over a five year period
(2012-2016) have been retrospectively reviewed to identify the cases of true glans hypermobility who underwent
glanspexy. Treatment outcomes and complications were
extrapolated from patient notes and modified EDITS
questionnaire. Significance was determined using an
unpaired t-test.
Results: Out of 1018 patients who had previously undergone penile prosthesis implantation, 21 patients underwent glanspexy. A modified EDITS questionnaire was
administered through a telephone consultation in 17
patients. Surgical outcome was extrapolated from the
clinical notes in 3 patients while one patient was lost to
follow up and was therefore excluded from the series.
Overall, 15 of the 20 patients (75%) were satisfied at the
postoperative follow up visit and had a supported glans.
The EDITS questionnaire revealed that 12 patients were
satisfied with the outcome of surgery, 2 were neither satisfied nor dissatisfied and 3 were dissatisfied.
Glans sensation was unchanged in 11 patients, reduced in
4 and improved in the remainder. Level of satisfaction was
significantly lower (p= 0.0006) in comorbid patients, such
as severe Peyronie's disease, multiple penile implant
exchanges, proximal urethroplasty, cystectomy, previous
failed glanspexy, paraplegia and previous oncological
treatment.
Conclusions: Glanspexy represents a safe and reproducible procedure for the management of hypermobile glans
non-responsive to medical treatment.
P3-4 Oncological outcomes of 100 glans
resurfacing procedures for superficial invasive
penile cancer
Sujenthiran A1, Yan S2, Ager M2, Corbishley C2, Tinwell
B2, Ayres B, Watkin N
1Kingston Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom,
2St Georges Healthcare NHS Trust, London, United Kingdom

Introduction: Glans resurfacing (GR) involves excision
of the penile glans, subcoronal epithelial and sub-epithelial
tissues with partial thickness skin grafting. In our unit, GR

Journal of Clinical Urology 11(1S)
has also been extended to treat presumed superficially
invasive squamous cell carcinoma of the penis (SCCp).
Materials and Methods: Since February 2004, 100
patients underwent GR for SCCp (34 were partial GR).
Data were recorded prospectively on positive margin,
early revision and local recurrence rates. Pathology was
reviewed and reclassified using TNM7.
Results: The median age was 63 (IQR 54-70) years and
median follow-up was 56 (IQR 32-86) months. On final
histology 49% were pT1a, 24% T1b, and 27% pT2. 4/87
patients with pathologically clear margins developed local
recurrence or a new primary: 2 glans recurrences (14 &
20 months) requiring glansectomy, 1 new penile shaft
tumour (54 months) requiring wide local excision (WLE)
and 1 new urethral primary (39 months) requiring radical
penectomy. 13/100 patients had a positive margin: 10 deep,
1 urethral and 2 glans margins (all partial GRs). 3 men had
early revision surgery (2 glansectomies, 1 total GR) - 2
had residual cancer and 1 PeIN. The remaining 10 men
were observed and 2 developed a recurrence at median
follow-up of 15 months subsequently treated with WLE or
total GR. Overall recurrence and revision rate was 8%.
Conclusions: Recurrence following GR for SCCp is low
if surgical margins are clear. Focal positive margins can be
closely observed as many will not recur and those that do
can usually be managed with WLE.
P3-5 Does the type of surgical procedure
for inguinal lymph node management affect
survival rates for patients with squamous cell
carcinoma of the penis?
Alnajjar H1, Christodoulidou M1, Nigam R1, Malone P1,
Mitra A2, Alifrangis C2, Ralph D1, Muneer A3
1Department of Urology, University College London Hospitals,
London, United Kingdom, 2Department of Oncology, University
College London Hospitals, London, United Kingdom, 3UCLH and
University College London, NIHR Biomedical Research Centre,
London, United Kingdom

Introduction: The surgical management of inguinal lymph
nodes in patients with penile SCC depends on clinical status (cN0/cN+). Patients suitable for dynamic sentinel node
biopsy (DSNB) may require a radical lymphadenectomy
due to FNAC positive nodes. Whether this impacts on
overall survival is unknown. The aim of this study was to
compare the 5-year survival for patients undergoing
DSNB, radical inguinal lymphadenectomy (RILND) for
cN0 and cN+ disease.
Materials and Methods: A single centre penile cancer
database reviewed a patient cohort over a 6-year period
with a minimum of 2-years follow-up. Patients were
divided into 3 groups according to the type of procedure
and the lymph node status. Group A-negative DSNB,
Group B-RILND due to positive DSNB or FNAC and

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of JCU - Abstracts of the BAUS 2018 Scientific Meeting - June 2018