Display options
Share it on

Turk J Urol. 2017 Mar;43(1):25-29. doi: 10.5152/tud.2016.39129. Epub 2017 Jan 06.

An update of Penile Fractures: Long-term significance of the number of hours elapsed till surgical repair on long-term outcomes.

Turkish journal of urology

Zafer Kozacıoğlu, Yasin Ceylan, Özgü Aydoğdu, Deniz Bolat, Bülent Günlüsoy, Süleyman Minareci

Affiliations

  1. Clinic of Urology, Bozyaka Training and Research Hospital, ?zmir, Turkey.

PMID: 28270947 PMCID: PMC5330264 DOI: 10.5152/tud.2016.39129

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: We updated our data on penile fractures and investigated the significance of the time interval from the incident of the fracture until the operation on the erectile functions and long-term complications.

MATERIAL AND METHODS: Between January 2001 and June 2014, 64 patients were operated on with a preoperative diagnosis of penile fracture. We could evaluate 54 of these patients. The patients were classified into 3 groups according to the time interval from the time of fracture until surgery. The validated Turkish version of the erectile components of International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF) was answered by every patient 3 times after the surgery; before the incident of fracture, at first postoperative year, and at the time of the study (IIEF-5 and question #15 were used). The complications were noted and an erectile function index score was calculated for every patient.

RESULTS: Mean follow up period was 44.9 (±2.8) months for all patients There was no statistically significant difference between the 3 groups in terms of the erectile components of IIEF questionnaire scores for the time periods and for individual patients in each separate group. Complications for all groups were also similar.

CONCLUSION: In consideration of long-term results, neither serious deformities nor erectile dysfunction occur as a consequence of a delay in surgery performed within the first 24 hours in patients without urethral involvement.

Keywords: Erectile dysfunction; fracture; penile fracture; penis; reconstruction; trauma

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of Interest: No conflict of interest was declared by the authors.

References

  1. Eur Urol. 2002 Mar;41(3):298-304 - PubMed
  2. J Trauma. 1998 Jul;45(1):153-4 - PubMed
  3. Can Urol Assoc J. 2013 Sep-Oct;7(9-10):E572-5 - PubMed
  4. Urology. 2011 Jun;77(6):1388-91 - PubMed
  5. Can Urol Assoc J. 2014 Jan-Feb;8(1-2):E51-3 - PubMed
  6. J Trauma. 2011 Aug;71(2):491-3 - PubMed
  7. J Sex Med. 2013 May;10(5):1424-30 - PubMed
  8. J Sex Med. 2009 Jul;6(7):2058-63 - PubMed
  9. Urol Int. 2016;96(3):315-29 - PubMed
  10. J Urol. 2004 Aug;172(2):576-9 - PubMed
  11. Urology. 2002 Sep;60(3):492-6 - PubMed
  12. Urology. 2015 Jul;86(1):181-5 - PubMed
  13. J Urol. 2000 Aug;164(2):364-6 - PubMed
  14. J Urol. 1996 Jan;155(1):148-9 - PubMed
  15. Urol Int. 2011;87(1):75-9 - PubMed
  16. Urol Clin North Am. 1989 May;16(2):369-75 - PubMed
  17. Adv Urol. 2014;2014:768158 - PubMed

Publication Types