Objective: Penile fracture and “false penile fracture”
are two emergent cases with similar clinical features. The
differential diagnosis is important to avoid unnecessary surgery. In
this study, we focused on understanding to distinguish between penile
fracture and “false penile fracture”.
Methods: We retrospectively examined the
clinicopathological features of 27 patients with a diagnosis of penile
fracture and “false penile fracture” between June 2012 and June 2015.
Results: Twenty-two patients were diagnosed with
penile fracture with 20 out of 22 patients undergoing surgical
treatment with no complications. Conservative treatment was applied to
two patients, however one patient developed erectile dysfunction. Five
patients were diagnosed with “false penile fracture”. Two patients
underwent surgical treatment and three patients underwent conservative
treatment. There were no complications in the five patients.
Conclusion: We suggest that surgical treatment is
needed for the treatment of penile fracture. However, there is no need
to surgical exploration for treatment of “false penile fracture”.
Conservative treatment is sufficient for “false penile fracture”. J Clin Exp Invest 2016; 7 (2): 174-177
Subjects | Health Care Administration |
---|---|
Journal Section | Research Article |
Authors | |
Publication Date | June 16, 2016 |
Published in Issue | Year 2016 |