![]() One was heroin addicted and one used cannabis. Three patients were influenced by alcohol. One patient suffered from penile deviation before the injury. The average age was 39.9 (19 - 69) years, median 38.5. The following variables were analyzed: age medical history symptoms and signs findings at physical examination time of day diagnostic tests used localization and size of any rupture of penile structures time from trauma to operation operative method duration of operation postoperative hospitalization period (days) and complications.The study was approved by the local ethical committee.Informed consent was obtained from all patients who took part in the telephone interviews. We also asked about postoperative complications such as penile deviation during erection, difficulty passing urine and reduced erectile function. Patients were asked about symptoms and whether the incident occurred during sexual intercourse or not. Thirty patients were operated and follow-up information was provided for 23 patients of whom 18 were contacted by phone and filled in a questionnaire. Operation notes by the urologist, imaging reports (MRI, Ultrasound), clinicians’ notes and the notes of nurses were reviewed. Patients were identified in our clinical database by the following ICD10 codes: N48.9 (Nonspecific penile disorders) N48.8 (Other specified penile disorders) S30.2, S37.9 (Injury of non-specified pelvic organ) S38.0 (Injury of external genital organs) and the following NCSP codes (The NOMESCO Classification of Surgical Procedures): KGH00 (Suture of penis) KGA96 (Other explorations or incisions of the penis). The objective of the present study was to review patients’ history, findings at clinical examination and imaging as well as treatment and outcome in patients admitted with suspected penile fracture to the Department of Urology at Oslo University Hospital during the recent ten-year period.įrom 2006 to 2014, 31 patients were referred with suspected penile fracture. The most common surgical approaches are longitudinal incision over the rupture site and sub-coronal de-gloving incision, but the importance of the surgical approach for the operation time and outcome is poorly described. The role of MRI to accurately localize the fracture site is of special interest. However, most patient series are small and the value of the different diagnostic tools is uncertain. Immediate surgery is recommended and preoperative localization of the rupture site is important for the extent of the surgical dissection. Trauma during sexual intercourse is the most common cause but forceful manipulation of the penis to achieve detumescence also occurs. The erect penis is at risk of fracture since the thickness of tunica albuginea, which is ca 2 mm when the penis is flaccid, is reduced to 0.25 mm when the penis is erect. It is a rare urological emergency and immediate surgical repair is recommended to obtain optimal functional outcome and avoid complications. ![]() Penile fracture is defined as a rupture of tunica albuginea caused by blunt trauma during erection. A longitudinal incision over the rupture site means significantly shorter operation time than de-gloving. Magnetic Resonance Imaging is recommended for localizing the rupture site. Conclusions: Immediate pain, swelling and hearing a cracking sound are predominant features in the history of patients with penile fracture. Short term complications were seen in four patients and long term complications were seen in 14 patients of which deviation of penis during erection was most common. The average operation time with longitudinal incision method and de-gloving was 43 minutes and 57 minutes, respectively. A longitudinal incision over the suspected site of the rupture was used in 20 patients and a sub-coronal de-gloving incision of the penile skin was used in 10 patients. Magnetic Resonance Imaging was used preoperatively in 10 patients and demonstrated the side and localization of the rupture in tunica albuginea in all cases. Results: Twenty-eight patients (90%) experienced immediate pain at incidence 29 (94%) experienced immediate swelling 23 (74%) heard a cracking sound 20 (65%) observed a blue discoloration immediately afterwards and 20 (65%) got immediate detumescence. Follow-up data were available for 23 patients. Data were retrieved from patients’ journals and analyzed retrospectively. Methods: Thirty-one patients were treated for penile fracture during the period 2006-2014. Objectives: The aim of this study is to review the diagnostic work-up, treatment methods and outcomes in patients treated for penile fractures.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |