Author(s)

Mehmet Harbiyeli¹, Hassan Abol-Enein², Truls Erik Bjerklund Johansen^3*

¹Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
²Urology & Nephrology Center, Mansoura University, Mansoura, Egypt.
³Urology Department, University of Oslo, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.

Objectives: The aim of this study is to review the diagnostic work-up, treatment methods and outcomes in patients treated for penile fractures. Methods: Thirty-one patients were treated for penile fracture during the period 2006-2014. Data were retrieved from patients’ journals and analyzed retrospectively. Follow-up data were available for 23 patients. 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. Magnetic Resonance Imaging was used preoperatively in 10 patients and demonstrated the side and localization of the rupture in tunica albuginea in all cases. 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. The average operation time with longitudinal incision method and de-gloving was 43 minutes and 57 minutes, respectively. 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. Conclusions: Immediate pain, swelling and hearing a cracking sound are predominant features in the history of patients with penile fracture. Magnetic Resonance Imaging is recommended for localizing the rupture site. A longitudinal incision over the rupture site means significantly shorter operation time than de-gloving.

Clinical Presentation, Imaging, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Operative Technique, Penile Fracture

Harbiyeli, M. , Abol-Enein, H. and Johansen, T. (2017) Diagnosis and Treatment of Penile Fractures: A Single Center Series. Open Journal of Urology, 7, 31-39. doi: 10.4236/oju.2017.72005.