Surgical and conservative treatment results of penile fracture: single-center experience

Yusuf Kasap; Kazım Ceviz; Muhammed Emin Polat; Lütfi İhsan Boyacı; Mecit Çelik; Samet Şenel; Emre Uzun

doi:10.17826/cumj.1139262

EN TR

Surgical and conservative treatment results of penile fracture: single-center experience

Öz

Amaç: Bu çalışmada penil fraktürde cerrahi tedavinin komplikasyon olarak daha avantajlı olduğu ancak cerrahi sonrasında da özellikle ikinci kez cerrahi gerektirecek kadar ciddi komplikasyonların görülebileceğini göstermek amaçlandı. Gereç ve Yöntem: 05.04.2019 ve 28.07.2021 tarihleri arasında penil fraktür tanısı konulan 31 hastanın verileri retrospektif olarak değerlendirildi. 3 hasta verilerine ulaşılamaması nedeni ile dışlandı. Penil fraktür onarımı yapılan 21 hasta grup 1 ve cerrahi istemediğinden konservatif olarak izlenen 7 hasta grup 2 olarak iki gruba ayrıldı. Penil fraktür nedenleri, acil servise başvuru süreleri, ultrasonografik (USG) görüntülemeleri incelendi. Tüm hastalar cerrahi veya konservatif tedavinin altıncı ayında IIEF-15 formu ile değerlendirildi. Ayrıca operasyondan sonra penil nodül ve kurvatür, ağrılı ereksiyon açısından değerlendirildi. Bulgular: Grup 1 için median yaş 43±14,52 Grup 2 için 47±14,71 idi. Grup 1 hastalar için tunika defekti 7,02±3,26, grup 2 için 6,85±4,98 idi. İki grup arasında komplikasyon ve erektil disfonkisyon (ED) varlığı karşılaştırıldığında Grup 2 de anlamlı olarak daha fazla komplikasyon geliştiği ve daha fazla ED’ ye neden olduğu saptandı. Sonuç: Penil fraktürün komplikasyon olarak daha az olan tedavisi cerrahi tedavidir ancak cerrahi tedavinin de ikinci kez cerrahi müdahale gerektirecek komplikasyonlara neden olabileceği unutulmamalıdır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Tunica defect, sexual dysfunction, tunica albuginea

Penil fraktürde cerrahi ve konservatif izlem sonuçları: tek merkez deneyimi

Öz

Purpose: The aim of this study was to show that surgical treatment ıf penile fracture (PF) is more advantageous than conservative treatment in terms of complications, but those complications can be seen after surgery also, even may be serious enough to require surgery for a second time. Materials and Methods: The data of 31 patients diagnosed with PF between 05.04.2019 and 28.07.2021 were evaluated retrospectively. Three patients were excluded from the study because their data could not be accessed. 21 patients who underwent PF repair were determined as group 1 and 7 patients who were followed conservatively because they did not want surgery, as group 2. Causes of PF, admission time to the emergency department, and ultrasonographic (USG) imaging were analyzed. All patients were evaluated with the IIEF-15 form at the sixth month of surgery or conservative treatment. In addition, penile nodules and curvature were evaluated in terms of painful erection after the operation. Results: The median age for Group 1 was 43±14.52 and 47±14.71 for Group 2. Tunica defect was 7.02±3.26 for group 1 patients and 6.85±4.98 for group 2. When the presence of complications and sexual dysfunction were compared between the two groups, it was found that Group 2 developed significantly more complications and caused more sexual dysfunction. Conclusion: The treatment of PF with fewer complications is surgical treatment, but it should not be forgotten that surgical treatment may cause complications requiring a second surgical intervention.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Tunica defect, sexual dysfunction, tunica albuginea

Destekleyen Kurum

Yoktur.

Proje Numarası

Yoktur.

Teşekkür

Yoktur.

Kaynakça

1. Fergany AF, Angermeier KW, Montague DK. Review of Cleveland Clinic experience with penile fracture. Urology 1999; 54:352-355.
2. Farah RN, Stiles R, Jr., Cerny JC. Surgical treatment of deformity and coital difficulty in healed traumatic rupture of the corpora cavernosa. J Urol 1978; 120:118-120.
3. Hassali M, Nouri A, Hamzah A, et al. Role of penile doppler as a diagnostic tool in penile fracture. Journal of Medical Ultrasound 2018; 26:48-51.
4. Al-Shaiji TF, Amann J, Brock GB. Fractured penis: diagnosis and management. J Sex Med 2009; 6:3231-3240; quiz 3241.
5. Masarani M. DM. Penile fracture: diagnosis and management. 2007; 12:20-24.
6. Mydlo JH. Surgeon experience with penile fracture. J Urol 2001; 166:526-528; discussion 528-529.
7. Zargooshi J. Sexual function and tunica albuginea wound healing following penile fracture: An 18-year follow-up study of 352 patients from Kermanshah, Iran. J Sex Med 2009; 6:1141-1150.
8. Ateyah A, Mostafa T, Nasser TA, et al. Penile fracture: surgical repair and late effects on erectile function. J Sex Med 2008; 5:1496-1502.
9. Hajji F, Ameur A. Butterfly hematoma after traumatic intercourse. Pan Afr Med J 2015; 20:317.
10. Saglam E, Tarhan F, Hamarat MB, ve ark. Efficacy of magnetic resonance imaging for diagnosis of penile fracture: A controlled study. Investig Clin Urol 2017; 58:255-260.

11. Morey AF, Metro MJ, Carney KJ, et al. Consensus on genitourinary trauma: external genitalia. BJU Int 2004; 94:507-515.
12. Uder M, Gohl D, Takahashi M, et al. MRI of penile fracture: diagnosis and therapeutic follow-up. Eur Radiol 2002; 12:113-120.
13. Eke N. Fracture of the penis. Br J Surg 2002; 89:555-565.
14. Kamdar C, Mooppan UM, Kim H, et al. Penile fracture: preoperative evaluation and surgical technique for optimal patient outcome. BJU Int 2008; 102:1640-1644; discussion 1644.
15. Bar-Yosef Y, Greenstein A, Beri A, et al. Dorsal vein injuries observed during penile exploration for suspected penile fracture. J Sex Med 2007; 4:1142-1146.
16. Baran C, Topsakal M, Kavukcu E, ve ark. Superficial dorsal vein rupture imitating penile fracture. Korean J Urol 2011; 52:293-294.
17. Nicely ER, Costabile RA, Moul JW. Rupture of the deep dorsal vein of the penis during sexual intercourse. J Urol 1992; 147:150-152.
18. El-Assmy A, El-Tholoth HS, Abou-El-Ghar ME, et al. Risk factors of erectile dysfunction and penile vascular changes after surgical repair of penile fracture. Int J Impot Res 2012; 24:20-25.
19. Hatzichristodoulou G, Dorstewitz A, Gschwend JE, et al. Surgical management of penile fracture and long-term outcome on erectile function and voiding. J Sex Med 2013; 10:1424-1430.
20. Bozzini G, Albersen M, Otero JR, et al. Delaying Surgical Treatment of Penile Fracture Results in Poor Functional Outcomes: Results from a Large Retrospective Multicenter European Study. Eur Urol Focus 2018; 4:106-110.
21. Yapanoglu T, Aksoy Y, Adanur S, ve ark. Seventeen years' experience of penile fracture: conservative vs. surgical treatment. J Sex Med 2009; 6:2058-2063.

Ayrıntılar

Birincil Dil

İngilizce

Konular

Klinik Tıp Bilimleri

Bölüm

Araştırma Makalesi

Yazarlar

Yusuf Kasap
0000-0001-5313-2611
Türkiye

Kazım Ceviz ^*
0000-0001-6343-383X
Palestine

Muhammed Emin Polat
0000-0003-0271-0746
Türkiye

Lütfi İhsan Boyacı
0000-0002-4373-515X
Türkiye

Mecit Çelik
0000-0003-1334-3451
Türkiye

Samet Şenel
0000-0003-2280-4192
Türkiye

Emre Uzun
0000-0002-3005-2122
Türkiye

Yayımlanma Tarihi

28 Aralık 2022

Gönderilme Tarihi

2 Temmuz 2022

Kabul Tarihi

21 Kasım 2022

Yayımlandığı Sayı

Yıl 2022 Cilt: 47 Sayı: 4

DOI

https://doi.org/10.17826/cumj.1139262

IZ

https://izlik.org/JA95NZ63UL

APA

Kasap, Y., Ceviz, K., Polat, M. E., Boyacı, L. İ., Çelik, M., Şenel, S., & Uzun, E. (2022). Surgical and conservative treatment results of penile fracture: single-center experience. Cukurova Medical Journal, 47(4), 1650-1655. https://doi.org/10.17826/cumj.1139262

AMA

1.Kasap Y, Ceviz K, Polat ME, vd. Surgical and conservative treatment results of penile fracture: single-center experience. Cukurova Med J. 2022;47(4):1650-1655. doi:10.17826/cumj.1139262

Chicago

Kasap, Yusuf, Kazım Ceviz, Muhammed Emin Polat, vd. 2022. “Surgical and conservative treatment results of penile fracture: single-center experience”. Cukurova Medical Journal 47 (4): 1650-55. https://doi.org/10.17826/cumj.1139262.

EndNote

Kasap Y, Ceviz K, Polat ME, Boyacı Lİ, Çelik M, Şenel S, Uzun E (01 Aralık 2022) Surgical and conservative treatment results of penile fracture: single-center experience. Cukurova Medical Journal 47 4 1650–1655.

IEEE

[1]Y. Kasap vd., “Surgical and conservative treatment results of penile fracture: single-center experience”, Cukurova Med J, c. 47, sy 4, ss. 1650–1655, Ara. 2022, doi: 10.17826/cumj.1139262.

ISNAD

Kasap, Yusuf - Ceviz, Kazım - Polat, Muhammed Emin - Boyacı, Lütfi İhsan - Çelik, Mecit - Şenel, Samet - Uzun, Emre. “Surgical and conservative treatment results of penile fracture: single-center experience”. Cukurova Medical Journal 47/4 (01 Aralık 2022): 1650-1655. https://doi.org/10.17826/cumj.1139262.

JAMA

1.Kasap Y, Ceviz K, Polat ME, Boyacı Lİ, Çelik M, Şenel S, Uzun E. Surgical and conservative treatment results of penile fracture: single-center experience. Cukurova Med J. 2022;47:1650–1655.

MLA

Kasap, Yusuf, vd. “Surgical and conservative treatment results of penile fracture: single-center experience”. Cukurova Medical Journal, c. 47, sy 4, Aralık 2022, ss. 1650-5, doi:10.17826/cumj.1139262.

Vancouver

1.Yusuf Kasap, Kazım Ceviz, Muhammed Emin Polat, Lütfi İhsan Boyacı, Mecit Çelik, Samet Şenel, Emre Uzun. Surgical and conservative treatment results of penile fracture: single-center experience. Cukurova Med J. 01 Aralık 2022;47(4):1650-5. doi:10.17826/cumj.1139262

Bu eser Creative Commons Atıf-Gayriticari-Türetilemez 4.0 Uluslararası Lisansı ile lisanslanmıştır.

Surgical and conservative treatment results of penile fracture: single-center experience

Öz

Anahtar Kelimeler

Penil fraktürde cerrahi ve konservatif izlem sonuçları: tek merkez deneyimi

Öz

Anahtar Kelimeler

Destekleyen Kurum

Proje Numarası

Teşekkür

Kaynakça

Ayrıntılar

Birincil Dil

Konular

Bölüm

Yazarlar

Yayımlanma Tarihi

Gönderilme Tarihi

Kabul Tarihi

Yayımlandığı Sayı

DOI

IZ

Kaynak Göster