Coil Embolization Is Not Justified for Treating Patients with Veno-Occlusive Dysfunction: Case Series and Narrative Literature Review.

Introduction: Herein, we explore whether coil embolization (CE) is effective in treating veno-occlusive dysfunction (VOD). We present five cases with seven CE episodes and a narrative literature review. Methods: From 2013 to 2018, refractory impotence prompted five men to seek penile vascular stripping (PVS), although seven CE episodes were included. All received dual cavernosography in which erection-related veins and VOD were documented. PVS entailed the venous stripping of one deep dorsal vein and two cavernosal veins. The abridged five-item version of the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF-5) score system and the erection hardness scale (EHS) were used, and yearly postoperative follow-ups were conducted via the Internet. Using Pub Med, a narrative literature review was performed on CE treatment for VOD or varicocele. Results: Inserted coils were scattered along the erection-related veins, including the deep dorsal veins (n = 4), periprostatic plexus (n = 5), iliac vein (n = 5), right pulmonary artery (n = 2), left pulmonary artery (n = 2), and right ventricle (n = 1). PVS resulted in some improvements in the IIEF-5 score and EHS scale. Six articles highly recommend CE treatment for VOD. All claimed it is a minimally invasive effective treatment for varicocele. Conclusions: CE is not justified as a VOD treatment, regardless of its viability in the treatment of varicocele.

Emergent Penile Venous Stripping for Treating Adolescent Impotence.

INTRODUCTION: Traditional anatomy-based penile venous surgery is deemed inadequate. Based on revolutionary insights into penile vasculature, penile venous stripping (PVS) shows promise in treating adolescent erectile dysfunction (AED). We aimed to report on this novel approach. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis of 223 individuals under 30 diagnosed with veno-occlusive dysfunction (VOD) between 2009 and 2023. Among them, 83 were diagnosed with AED and divided into the PVS (n = 37) and no-surgery (NS, n = 46) groups. All participants had been dissatisfied with conventional therapeutic options. Dual pharmaco-cavernosography was the primary diagnostic modality. PVS involved stripping the deep dorsal vein and two cavernosal veins after securing each emissary's vein with a 6-0 nylon suture. Erection restoration was accessed using the abridged five-item version of the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF-5) score system and the erection hardness scale (EHS). Statistical analysis was performed using IBM SPSS 21.0. RESULTS: There were significant differences (both p < 0.001) between the preoperative and postoperative IIEF-5 scores in the PVS and NS groups (9.8 ± 3.0 vs. 20.4 ± 2.2; 9.9 ± 2.5 vs. 9.5 ± 2.1), as well as in the EHS scores (1.7 ± 0.7 vs. 3.5 ± 0.6 and 1.8 ± 0.5 vs. 1.3 ± 0.4). The satisfaction rate was 87.9% (29/33) in the PVS group and 16.7% (17/41) in the NS group. CONCLUSIONS: AED can be effectively treated using physiological methods, although larger patient cohorts are needed for validation.