PD48-03 COMPUTATIONAL GONIOMETRY AND VOLUMETRY OF PEYRONIE'S DISEASE DEFORMITIES CAPTURED WITH 3D STRUCTURED LIGHT SCANNING

Abstract

You have accessJournal of UrologySexual Function/Dysfunction: Peyronie's Disease (PD48)1 Sep 2021PD48-03 COMPUTATIONAL GONIOMETRY AND VOLUMETRY OF PEYRONIE'S DISEASE DEFORMITIES CAPTURED WITH 3D STRUCTURED LIGHT SCANNING Alvaro Santamaria, Dyvon Walker, Tommy Jiang, Renea Sturm, Jesse Mills, and Sriram Eleswarapu Alvaro SantamariaAlvaro Santamaria More articles by this author , Dyvon WalkerDyvon Walker More articles by this author , Tommy JiangTommy Jiang More articles by this author , Renea SturmRenea Sturm More articles by this author , Jesse MillsJesse Mills More articles by this author , and Sriram EleswarapuSriram Eleswarapu More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000002070.03AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: Peyronie’s disease (PD) deformities are conventionally assessed with manual goniometry, which provides angulation but neglects volume loss and atypical deformities. Inter-rater variability complicates accuracy of assessment. Our aims were to: 1) establish a workflow for digital characterization of penile deformities using 3D structured light scanning, and 2) compare outcomes derived from manual and digital measurement. METHODS: With IRB approval, we prospectively enrolled men age 18+ with PD. Intracavernosal alprostadil was administered, and erect penis underwent conventional goniometry followed by structured light scanning (Artec Space Spider) (Fig. A). Computation of penile angle and volumes were completed by two urologists using Autodesk Meshmixer and Fusion 360 (Fig. B). Wilcoxon rank sum test compared conventional goniometry to digital angle assessment. RESULTS: Of 22 men, 10 (45.5%) had dorsal curve, 9 (40.9%) lateral, and 3 (13.6%) ventral. Goniometric measurements were 50.5° ± 15.0° (range 30.0°-90.0°). Digital angle computations were 46.7° ± 18.4° (range 23.6°-90.9°) (conventional vs. digital, p=0.15). Percent difference between conventional and digital angles was 3.4% ± 30.5% (range in difference 0.5°-56.4°). Inter-rater absolute differences in digital angle computation ranged 0.65°-12.9°. Computed penile volumes were 109 cc ± 34.3 cc (range 47.5-177.5 cc). Inter-rater percent difference for volume computation was 2.7% ± 2.7% (range in difference 0-6.07 cc). CONCLUSIONS: This technique represents a reproducible computational workflow for digital goniometry and volumetric assessment of penile deformities, which may have utility for treatment planning, patient counseling, and tracking of treatment outcomes. Source of Funding: Research grant from Sexual Medicine Society of North America, Research Scholar Award from the Urology Care Foundation & American Urological Association © 2021 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 206Issue Supplement 3September 2021Page: e839-e839 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2021 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Alvaro Santamaria More articles by this author Dyvon Walker More articles by this author Tommy Jiang More articles by this author Renea Sturm More articles by this author Jesse Mills More articles by this author Sriram Eleswarapu More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Loading ...