Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T02:51:58.306Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Phantom Erection after Amputation of Penis. Case Description and Review of the Relevant Literature on Phantoms

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 August 2019

C.M. Fisher
C.M. Fisher*
Affiliation:
Neurology Service, Massachusetts General Hospital, Fruit Street, Boston, MA, USA
*
Neurology Service, Massachusetts General Hospital, Fruit Street, Boston, MA, USA 02114
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract:

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Background:

Perception of a phantom limb is frequent after an amputation of an upper or lower extremity. Phantom penis is reported infrequently.

Method:

Case description and literature review.

Result:

The phenomenon of phantom penis followed total penectomy. Several aspects were unusual, particularly the existence with phantom only in the erect state, and associated recrudescence of a preoperative painful ulcer. General features of limb phantoms after amputation are reviewed including a résumé of recent studies of cortical reorganization. The phantom process is analyzed looking for clues to the nature of the underlying neural organization. The puzzle of phantom pain is briefly touched on.

Conclusion:

The development of the phantom is attributed to activity in the deafferented parietal sensory cortex.

Résumé:

Résumé:<span class='italic'>Introduction:</span>

La perception d'un membre fantôme est fréquente après une amputation d'un membre supérieur ou inférieur. On a rarement rapporté un pénis fantôme.

<span class='italic'>Méthode:</span>

Présentation de cas et revue de lit-térature.

<span class='italic'>Résultat:</span>

Le phénomène du pénis fantôme s'est manifesté à la suite d'une pénicectomie totale. Plusieurs aspects étaient inusités, particulièrement l'existence du fantôme seulement en état d'érection et associé à une recrudesCence d'un ulcère douloureux préopératoire. Nous revoyons les caractéristiques générales des membres fantômes après amputation, incluant un résumé des études récentes sur l'organisation corticale. Le processus du fantôme est analysé pour chercher des indices sous-jacents sur la nature de l'organisation neurale. Nous faisons allusion à l'énigme de la douleur fantôme.

<span class='italic'>Conclusion:</span>

Le développement du fantôme est attribué à l'activité du cortex pariétal sensitif désafférentié.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Canadian Journal of Neurological Sciences , Volume 26 , Issue 1 , February 1999 , pp. 53 - 56
Copyright
Copyright © The Canadian Journal of Neurological 1999

References

1. Henderson, WR, Smyth, GE. Phantom limbs. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 1948; 2: 88–112.Google Scholar
2. Cronholm, B. Phantom limbs in amputees. Acta Psychiatrica Neurol Scand 1951; 72 (Suppl.): 1–310.Google Scholar
3. Simmel, ML. On phantom limbs. Arch Neurol Psychiatry 1956; 75: 637–647.Google Scholar
4. Krøner, K, Krebs, B, Skov, J. Jørgensen, HS. Immediate and long-term phantom breast syndrome after mastectomy: incidence, clinical characteristics and relationship to pre-mastectomy breast pain. Pain 1989; 36: 327–334.Google Scholar
5. Mitchell, SW. Injuries of nerves and their consequences. Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott Co., 1872.Google Scholar
6. Heusner, AP. Phantom genitalia. Trans Am Neurol Assoc 1950; 75: 128–131.Google Scholar
7. Crone-Münzebrock, A. Zur Kenntnis des Phantomerlebnisses nach Penisamputationen. Zeitschrft Urol 1951; 44: 819–822.Google Scholar
8. Melzack, R. Phantom limbs, the self and the brain. (The D.O. Hebb Memorial Lecture) Canadian Psychology 1989; 30: 1–16.Google Scholar
9. Penfield, W, Rasmussen, T. The cerebral cortex of man. New York: The MacMillan Company, 1950.Google Scholar
10. Katz, J, Melzack, R. Pain ‘memories’ in phantom limbs: Review and Clinical Observations. Pain 1990; 43: 319–336.Google Scholar
11. Mayer-Gross, W. Ein Fall von Phantomarm nach Plexuszerreissung. Nervenarzt 1929; 2: 65–72.Google Scholar
12. Bors, E. Phantom limbs of patients with spinal cord injury. Arch Neurol Psychiatry 1951; 66: 610–631.Google Scholar
13. Weinstein, S. Phantoms in paraplegia. Proceedings of the 11th Annual Clinical Spinal Cord Injury Conference. New York. 1962; 138–152.Google Scholar
14. White, JC, Sweet, WH. Pain. Its Mechanism and Control. Springfield, USA: Charles C. Thomas, 1955.Google Scholar
15. Bornstein, B. Sur le Phénomène du Membre, Fantome. Encéphale 1949; 38: 32–46.Google Scholar
16. Head, H, Holmes, G. Sensory disturbances from cerebral lesions. Brain 1911–1912; 34: 102–254.Google Scholar
17. Erickson, TC, Bleckwenn, WJ, Woolsey, CN. Observations on the post central gyrus in relation to pain. Trans Amer Neurol Assoc 1952; 77: 57–59.Google Scholar
18. Hécaen, H, Penfield, W, Bertrand, C, Malmo, R. The syndrome of apractognosia due to lesions of the minor cerebral hemisphere. Arch Neurol Psychiatry 1956; 75: 400–434.Google Scholar
19. Appenzeller, O, Bicknell, JM. Effects of nervous system lesions on phantom experience in amputees. Neurology 1969; 19: 141–146.Google Scholar
20. Merzenich, MM, Kaas, JH, Wall, JT, et al. Topographic reorganization of somatosensory cortical areas 3b and 1 in adult monkeys following restricted deafferentation. Neuroscience 1983; 8: 33–55.Google Scholar
21. Pons, TP, Garraghty, PE, Ommaya, AK, et al. Massive cortical reorganization after sensory deafferentation in adult macaques. Science 1991; 252: 1857–1860.Google Scholar
22. Ramachandran, VS, Rogers-Ramachandran, D, Stewart, M. Perceptual correlates of massive cortical reorganization. Science 1992; 258: 1159–1160.Google Scholar
23. Kew, JJM, Halligan, PW, Marshall, JC, et al. Abnormal access of axial vibrotactile input to deafferented somatonsensory cortex in human upper limb amputees. J Neurophysiol 1997; 77: 2753–2764.Google Scholar
24. Ramachandran, VS, Rogers-Ramachandran, D, Cobb, S. Touching the phantom limb. Nature 1995; 377: 489–490.Google Scholar
25. Ramachandran, VS, Rogers-Ramachandran, D. Synaesthesia in phantom limbs induced with mirrors. Proc R Soc London B Biol Sci 1996; 263: 377–386.Google Scholar
26. Chen, R, Corwell, B, Hallet, M. Cohen, LG. Mechanisms involved in motor reorganization following lower limb amputation. Neurology 1997; 48 (Suppl. 2): A345.Google Scholar
27. Flor, H, Elbert, T, Knecht, S, et al. Phantom-limb pain as a perceptual correlate of cortical reorganization following arm amputation. Nature 1995; 375: 482–484.Google Scholar
28. Birbaumer, N, Lutzenberger, W, Montoya, P, et al. Effects of regional anesthesia on phantom limb pain are mirrored in changes in cortical reorganization. J Neurosci 1997; 17: 5503–5508.Google Scholar
29. Davis, KD, Kiss, ZHT, Luo, L, et al. Phantom sensations generated by thalamic microstimulation. Nature 1998; 391: 385–387.Google Scholar
30. Lue, TF. Physiology of penile erection and pathophysiology of erectile dysfunction and priapism. Walsh, PC, Ratik, AB, Vaughan, ED, Wein, AJ. eds. Campbell's Urology, 7th Ed, Vol 2. Philadelphia: WB Saunders Co., 1998.Google Scholar
31. Erickson, TC. Erotomania (Nyphomania) as an expression of cortical epileptiform discharge. Arch Neurol Psychiatry 1945; 53: 226–231.Google Scholar
32. Terzian, H, Dalle, G. Syndrome of Klüver-Bucy reproduced in man by bilateral removal of the temporal lobes. Neurology 1955; 5: 373–380.Google Scholar
33. Crone-Münzebrock, A. Phantomgefùhl und Phantomschmerz nach Mammaamputation. Langenbechs Arch u Dtsch Z Chir 1950; 226: 569–575.Google Scholar
34. Jankovic, J, Glass, JP. Metoclopramide-induced phantom dyskinesia. Neurology 1985; 35: 432–435.Google Scholar
35. Katz, J. Psychophysiological contributions to phantom limbs. Can J Psychiatry 1992; 37: 282–298.Google Scholar
36. Bors, E, Engle, ET, Rosenquist, RC, Holliger, VH. Fertility in paraplegic males. J Clin Endocrinol 1950; 10: 381–398.Google Scholar