This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: 28/1/200    most recent Author Manuscript (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Hsu, G.-L. Articles by Chua, C. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Hsu, G.-L. Articles by Chua, C.

The Advancement of Pure Local Anesthesia for Penile Surgeries: Can an Outpatient Basis Be Sustainable?

GENG-LONG HSU^*,

CHENG-HSING HSIEH^*,

HENG-SHUEN CHEN^*,

PEI-YING LING^*,

HSIEN-SHENG WEN^*,

LI-JEN LIU^*,

CHENG-WENG CHEN^*,

CEFERINO CHUA^*,

From the ^* Geng-Long Hsu Foundation for Microsurgical Potency Research, Monterey Park, California; Microsurgical Potency Reconstruction and Research Center, Taiwan Adventist Hospital; and the Department of Medical Informatics & Family Medicine, College of Medicine, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China

Correspondence to: Dr Geng-Long Hsu, Microsurgical Potency Reconstruction and Research Center, Taiwan Adventist Hospital, 424, Ba-De Road, Sec. 2, Taipei, Taiwan (e-mail: glhsu{at}tahsda.org.tw).

Although topical anesthetic blockage for penile surgeries has been substantially reported in the medical literature, its methodology, reliability, and reproducibility have not been consistent. We report on several methods of topical blocks for local anesthesia in patients with indications for penile surgeries. From March 1993 to March 2003, a total of 1131 men, ages 19 to 87, underwent penile surgeries in which 165, 203, 708, 45, and 10 patients received penile implantation, modified Nesbit procedure, venous surgery, venous patches, and arterial revascularization respectively, under pure local anesthesia on an outpatient basis. They were categorized into the implant, Nesbit, venous, patch, and arterial groups respectively. Proximal dorsal nerve blockage, peripenile infiltration, and topical injection, although challenging, were sufficient local anesthesia for patients in the last 4 patient groups. A new method of crural blockade, however, was also required for optimal anesthesia of the cavernous nerve for implantation purposes. The anesthetic effects and postoperative results were satisfactory. Common immediate side effects included puncture of the corpus spongiosum or the deep dorsal vein as well as the innominate vessel, subcutaneous ecchymosis, transient palpitations, and acceptable low level of pain. There were no significant late complications. In the implant group, however, 6.1% of patients (10/165) had experienced pain over the perineum for 1 to 2 weeks postoperatively. Overall there were statistical differences in scoring between the 5 groups in which the implant group stood out when a visual analog scale of 100 mm was used. Topical nerve blockades proved to be reliable, simple, and safe, with minimal complications. They offer the advantages of less morbidity, reduced effects of anesthesia, protection of privacy, and a rapid return to preoperative daily activity.

     Key words: Proximal dorsal nerve block, peripenile infiltration, crural block