Home
About Us
Issues
Authors
Reviewers
Users
Subscription
Our Other Journals
Site map
Aims and Scope
Salient Features
Editorial Board
Editorial Statements
Editorial-PeerReview Process
Publication Ethics & Malpractice
Ijars Performance
Journal Policy
Contact Us
Current Issue
Forthcoming
Article Archive
Access Statistics
Simple Search
Advanced Search
Submit an Article
Instructions
Assistance
Publication Fee
Paid Services
Apply As Reviewer
Acknowledgment
Register Here Edit Register
Register For Article Submission
Login Here Logout
Login For Article Submission
Annual
Buy One Issue
Payment Options
How to Order
JCDR
IJNMR
NJLM

 

Welcome : Guest

Users Online :

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Original article / research

Year :2020 Month : July-August Volume : 9 Issue : 3 Page : SO01 - SO04 Full Version

Aetiology, Evaluation and Management of Penile Fracture: Experience at a Teaching Hospital in Central India


Pushpendra Kumar Shukla, Varsha Shukla, K Sureshkumar, Vivek Sharma
1. Assistant Professor, Department of Urology, S.S.Medical College, Rewa, Madhya Pradesh, India. 2. Senior Resident, Department of General Surgery, S.S.Medical College, Rewa, Madhya Pradesh, India. 3. Junior Resident, Department of General Surgery, S.S.Medical College, Rewa, Madhya Pradesh, India. 4. Assistant Professor, Department of Urology, S.S.Medical College, Rewa, Madhya Pradesh, India.
 
Correspondence Address :
Dr. Pushpendra Kumar Shukla,
Department of Urology, S.S.Medical College, Rewa-486001, Madhya Pradesh, India.
E-mail: pushpendra2507@gmail.com
 
ABSTRACT

: Introduction: Penile fracture is rupture of corpora cavernosa which occurs when the rigid penis is forcibly bent against resistance, leading to the disruption of tunica albuginea. There is classical history and physical examination before reaching upon this diagnosis.

Aim: To study the aetiology, clinical presentation and share the experience in evaluation and treatment of penile fracture.

Materials and Methods: The retrospective study was carried out on 26 patients, admitted in surgical facility in SS Medical College and associated SGM Hospital, Rewa, Madhya Pradesh, India from January 2014 to December 2018. Patient details like, age, marital status, aetiology, clinical presentation, time interval from injury to presentation, investigation done, treatment given and intraoperative findings were assessed from the hospital records.

Results: The main cause of penile fractures was sexual intercourse (65.38%) followed by manual manipulation (26.92%). Ultrasonography (USG) was used for confirmation of diagnosis with sensitivity and specificity of 87.5% and 100%, respectively. Surgical exploration and repair of injury was done in all patients. The unilateral corporal injuries were the most common finding (76.92%). Urethral injuries were found in 11.53%.

Conclusion: Most of the time diagnosis of penile fracture can be made reliably by history and physical examination. USG can be useful adjunct in confirmation of diagnosis and planning of incision. Early surgical intervention is standard of care, because it is associated with a good outcome, regardless of the timing of presentation.
Keywords : Surgical management, Ultrasonography, Urethral injuries
DOI and Others : DOI: 10.7860/IJARS/2020/44216:2543

Date of Submission: Mar 03, 2020
Date of Peer Review: Mar 31, 2020
Date of Acceptance: Apr 10, 2020
Date of Publishing: Jul 01, 2020

• Financial or Other Competing Interests: None
• Was Ethics Committee Approval obtained for this study? Yes
• Was informed consent obtained from the subjects involved in the study? Yes
• For any images presented appropriate consent has been obtained from the subjects. Yes
 
INTRODUCTION

Penile fracture is an uncommon injury, incidence is 1 in 175,000 (1) and defined as the rupture of corpora cavernosa which occurs when the rigid penis is forcibly bent against resistance leading to the disruption of tunica albuginea (2). Penile fracture has been reported with sexual intercourse, masturbation, rolling over the bed or falling on to erect penis (2). Classically, there is history of snap sound, pain, detumescence and on physical examination, haematoma of penis with“eggplant deformity” and “rolling sign” in experienced hands. Synchronous urethral injury could be present in 1% to 38% of cases which should be suspected in presence of voiding symptoms, bleeding per urethra and haematuria (3),(4). Preoperative retrograde urethrography or urethroscopy during surgical exploration should be considered, if there is suspicion of urethral injury. There are no clear consensus regarding use of imaging modalities in the diagnosis of penile fracture (4). USG, cavernosography and Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) are used as diagnostic tools in literature (4),(5).

Immediate surgical intervention is the mainstay in the management of penile fracture, which is also favoured by most of the studies because it is associated with adequate functional and cosmetic results, with minimal complication (2),(4),(6),(7),(8),(9).

This retrospective study was done with the aim to analyse the aetiology, clinical presentation and role of ultrasonography in diagnosis and treatment planning in patients of penile fracture. Penile fracture is under-reported entity especially in India, with this study, author want to share the experience in evaluation and treatment of the same at a teaching hospital of Central India region.
 
 
Material and Methods

This retrospective study was done at SS Medical College Rewa and associated SGM Hospital, Rewa, Madhya Pradesh, India from January 2014 to December 2018. Institutional approval was taken for the study. In total, 26 patients admitted in the surgical facility with penile fracture were included in the study. Patient details: age, marital status, aetiology, clinical presentation, time interval from injury to presentation, investigation done, treatment given and intraoperative findings were assessed from the hospital records.

Long term follow-up data were incomplete in hospital records, so all patients were called for evaluation in month of November 2019 with help of available postal address and telephone number. Voiding symptoms and erectile function were evaluated. The International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF 5) was used for grading of Erectile Dysfunction (ED). Clinical examination was done for presence of nodule and chordee.

Statistical Analysis

The statistical analysis of the data was done by using the Excel program (Microsoft Inc., Redmond, WA, USA).
 
 
Results

The mean age was 31.53± 9.41 years (17-52 years). Seventeen patients (65.38%) were married and 9 (34.61%) were single at the time of presentation. The time interval from injury to presentation was 26.34±18.16 hours (7-72 hours). The mean hospital stay was 5.15± 2.5 days (2-12 days).

The injury was caused by sexual intercourse in 17 (65.38%), manipulation during masturbation in 7 cases (26.92%), direct blow on erect penis in 1 (3.84%) and rolling over or falling from bed with erect penis in 1 (3.84%).

Most of the patients presented with the typical clinical picture of a characteristic sound at the time of injury, pain, detumescence and significant haematoma. Haematoma was present in 25 cases (96.15%) (Table/Fig 1). Rolling sign which is characteristic of fracture penis was positive in 19 cases (73.07%). USG was done in all cases for confirmation of diagnosis. Defect in the tunica albuginea was seen in 21/24 patients of true penile fracture (Table/Fig 2). Urinalysis was done in all cases. Three patients presented with bleeding per urethra. Retrograde urethrography was performed in all three cases.

In all 26 patients, surgical repair was performed under spinal anaesthesia. Per urethral catheterization (14F-16F) was done in all patients except in suspected urethral injuries. Distal circumcoronal incision was used in 22 cases and degloving of penis was done for the inspection of all the three corporeal bodies and urethra. Median raphe incision at penoscrotal junction was used in four cases on the basis of USG finding, suggestive of injury at proximal corpora. The procedure included: evacuation of the haematoma, identification of the site and number of defect (Table/Fig 2). Closure of the tunical defect with interrupted 2-0 or 3-0 absorbable sutures (polyglactin) was done. In case of urethral injuries, absorbable (polyglactin) suture (4-0) was used for repair of urethra (Table/Fig 3),(Table/Fig 4),(Table/Fig 5).

Penile fracture was found in 24 cases. Injury involved unilateral corpora cavernosum in 20 cases (76.92%), bilateral corpora cavernosa in 4 cases (15.38%). Synchronous urethral injury was found in three cases and in two cases, exploration revealed intact tunica with bleeding from the torn superficial vein that was ligated (false penile fracture) (Table/Fig 6). Circumcision, was done in all 22 cases in which circumcoronal incision was used.

Urethral catheter was removed after 24 hours. In case of urethral injury, Foley catheter was removed after the pericatheter contrast study to rule out any extravasation of dye at two weeks. Patients were instructed to withhold intercourse and masturbation for four weeks. All patients were discharged with estradiol 0.05 mg orally to prevent postoperative painful erections for three weeks.

Skin blackening was seen in one patient and serous discharge was noted in two patients in immediate postoperative period which were managed conservatively. Twenty-one patients had reported for follow-up in November 2019. Significant thickening at place of repair was seen in eight patients, mild chordee (<20°) was noted in two patients. Seventeen patients demonstrated no ED (IIEF-5 >22) and four patients had mild ED (IIEF-5, 17-21). All patients reported adequate erection for intercourse without voiding symptoms.
 
 
Discussion

Penile fracture is rare occurrence but, it is being reported with increased frequency in the recent past (10). Injuries to the flaccid penis are uncommon due to its protected location and relative mobility (2). In the errect state, there is engorgement of corpora cavernosa with blood and the tunica albuginea thins out which makes it more vulnerable to trauma (11).

As long as Buck’s fascia remains intact and haematoma is contained within it, patient presents with “eggplant deformity” that is swelling, discolouration and deviation of the penile shaft, it is a common finding in less severe cases. The “rolling sign” is due to presence of clot over the tunica albuginea tear. On palpation, there is firm, tender and fixed swelling and skin can rolled over it, this sign helps in determining the site of injury (3). In case of injury to Buck’s fascia, there is extension of haematoma into the subcutaneous plane of the scrotum, perineum and suprapubic region (12). Surgical intervention is required in most of the cases because false penile fracture that is injury to superficial veins cannot be distinguished clinically or radiologically from true penile fracture with certainty (4),(12).

In present study, the mean age of patients with penile fracture was 31.53 years. Sexual intercourse was most common aetiology leading to penile fracture in 65.38% in present series. There is delay of 26.3 hours between injury and presentation to the hospital. It is mainly due to social inhibition and underlying shame associated with event.

Recent series have demonstrated that the diagnosis of penile fracture is mainly based on history and physical examination (5),(14),(14). Ultrasound is non-invasive, safe and cost effective modality, which determines the site and length of injury in most of the cases (2),(5),(15). There is an interruption of the thin echogenic line of the tunica albuginea with associated haematoma suggestive of penile fracture. Absence of loss of the continuity does not always rule out penile fracture, because small tear occluded by a thrombus can be missed (5),(12). It also helps in planning of incision.

Immediate operative intervention was done in all patients regardless of the timing of presentation. This is in accordance with the recent European Association of Urology Guidelines (16). Fetter and Gartmen’s first described the operative repair of penile fracture in 1936 (17), several incisions have been described in literature which includes longitudinal incision over the haematoma, suprapubic incision, inguinoscrotal incision, high scrotal midline incision on the raphe and penile degloving. Sub-coronal circumferential incision to deglove the penile shaft gives excellent exposure of all the three corpora and avoids missing the injuries, if at multiple sites and associated with urethral injuries (3),(18).

Urethral injury could be an associated lesion in 1% to 38% of penile fractures (3). Patients with associated urethral injury present with blood at the external meatus, gross haematuria or urinary retention. But, absence of these signs does not exclude urethral injuries. Currently, cystoscopic placement of urethral catheter in operating room has been advocated when there is high suspicion of urethral injuries (19). Three (11.53%) of the present study patients had concomitant urethral injury. Most of the index study findings are consistent with recent Indian and international studies (Table/Fig 7) (6),(7),(8),(9),(12),(14),(14),(20),(21),(22),(23),(24),(25). (Table/Fig 8) shows comparison of different studies using USG as a diagnostic modality (2),(5),(8),(15),(21).

Most of the literature supports the surgical intervention in management of penile fracture which results in earlier recovery, lower incidence of ED and less chances of long-term penile curvature (6),(7),(8),(9),(25),(26). Surgical intervention is better than conservative management, but short delay in surgery does not adversely affect the outcome of procedure (27).

Limitation(s)

The limitations of present study are its retrospective nature and limited number of cases due to rarity of disease.
 
 
Conclusion

Penile fracture is a rare urological emergency. There is significant delay in presentation, due to social inhibition and underlying shame associated with event. Most of the time diagnosis of penile fracture can be made reliably by history and physical examination. USG can be useful adjunct in confirmation of diagnosis and planning of incision. Early surgical intervention is standard of care, because it is associated with faster recovery and increased patient satisfaction, regardless of the timing of presentation.
 
REFERENCES
1.
Koifman L, Barros R, Júnior RA, Cavalcanti AG, Favorito LA. Penile fracture: Diagnosis, treatment and outcomes of 150 patients. Urology. 2010;76(6):1488-92. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2010.05.043   [Google Scholar]
2.
Reis LO, Cartapatti M, Marmiroli R, de Oliveira Júnior EJ, Saade RD, Fregonesi A. Mechanisms predisposing penile fracture and long-term outcomes on erectile and voiding functions. Adv Urol. 2014;2014:768158. doi:10.1155/2014/768158   [Google Scholar]
3.
Zargooshi J. Penile fracture in Kermanshah, Iran: Report of 172 cases. J Urol. 2000;164(2):364-66.   [Google Scholar]
4.
Amer T, Wilson R, Chlosta P, AlBuheissi S, Qazi H, Fraser M, et al. Penile fracture: A meta-analysis. Urol Int. 2016;96(3):315-29. doi:10.1159/000444884   [Google Scholar]
5.
ZareMehrjardi M, Darabi M, Bagheri SM, Kamali K, Bijan B. The role of ultrasound (US) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in penile fracture mapping for modified surgical repair. Int Urol Nephrol. 2017;49(6):937-45. doi:10.1007/s11255-017-1550-x   [Google Scholar]
6.
Nason GJ, McGuire BB, Liddy S, Looney A, Lennon GM, Mulvin DW, et al. Sexual function outcomes following fracture of the penis. Can UrolAssoc J. 2013;7(7-8):252-57. doi:10.5489/cuaj.199   [Google Scholar]
7.
Swanson DE, Polackwich AS, Helfand BT, Masson P, Hwong J, Dugi DD, et al. Penile fracture: Outcomes of early surgical intervention. Urology. 2014;84(5):1117-21. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2014.07.034   [Google Scholar]
8.
De Luca F, Garaffa G, Falcone M, Raheem A, Zacharakis E, Shabbir M, et al. Functional outcomes following immediate repair of penile fracture: A tertiary referral centre experience with 76 consecutive patients. Scand J Urol. 2017;51(2):170-75. doi:10.1080/21681805.2017.1280532   [Google Scholar]
9.
Kati B, Akin Y, Demir M, Boran OF, Gumus K, Ciftci H. Penile fracture and investigation of early surgical repair effects on erectile dysfunction.Urologia Journal. 2019;86(4):207-10. https://doi.org/10.1177/0391560319844657   [Google Scholar]
10.
Agarwal MM, Singh SK, Sharma DK, Ranjan P, Kumar S, Chandramohan V, et al. Fracture of the penis: A radiological or clinical diagnosis? A case series and literature review. Can J Urol. 2009;16(2):4568-75.   [Google Scholar]
11.
Jack GS, Garraway I, Reznichek R, Rajfer J. Current treatment options for penile fractures. Rev Urol. 2004;6(3):114-20.   [Google Scholar]
12.
Yamaçake KG, Tavares A, Padovani GP, Guglielmetti GB, Cury J, Srougi M. Long-term treatment outcomes between surgical correction and conservative management for penile fracture: Retrospective analysis. Korean J Urol. 2013;54(7):472.76. doi:10.4111/kju.2013.54.7.472   [Google Scholar]
13.
Omisanjo O, Bioku M, Ikuerowo S, Sule G , Esho J. A prospective analysis of the presentation and management of penile fracture at the Lagos State University Teaching Hospital (LASUTH), Ikeja, Lagos, Nigeria. African Journal of Urology. 2014; 21 (1).doi: 10.1016/j.afju.2014.07.001   [Google Scholar]
14.
Özorak A, Hos¸ can MB, Oksay T, Güzel A, Kos¸ ar A. Management and outcomes of penile fracture: 10 years’ experience from a tertiary care centre. IntUrolNephrol. 2014;46:519-22. doi: 10.1007/s11255-013-0531-y   [Google Scholar]
15.
Shukla AK, Bhagavan BC, Sanjay SC, Krishnappa N, Sahadev R, V S. Role of ultrasonography in grading of penile fractures. J ClinDiagn Res. 2015;9(4):TC01-TC3. doi:10.7860/JCDR/2015/11628.5754   [Google Scholar]
16.
[Guideline] Kitrey ND (Chair), Djakovic N, Kuehhas FE. European Association of Urology Guidelines on Urological Trauma. uroweb.org. Available at http://uroweb.org/guideline/urological-trauma/. 2018; Accessed: July 5, 2018.   [Google Scholar]
17.
Fetter TR, Gartmen E. Traumatic rupture of penis. Case report. American Journal of Surgery. 1936;13:371-72.   [Google Scholar]
18.
Miller S, McAninch JW. Penile fracture and soft tissue injury. In: McAninch JW, editor. Traumatic and reconstructive urology. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders; 1996. p. 693-98.   [Google Scholar]
19.
Kamdar C, Mooppan UM, Kim H, Gulmi FA. Penile fracture: Preoperative evaluation and surgical technique for optimal patient outcome. BJU Int. 2008;102(11):1640-44. doi:10.1111/j.1464-410X.2008.07902.x   [Google Scholar]
20.
Bali RS, Rashid A, Mushtaque M, Nabi S, Thakur SA, Bhat RA. Penile fracture: Experience from a third world country. Adv Urol. 2013;2013:708362. doi:10.1155/2013/708362   [Google Scholar]
21.
Mahapatra RS, Kundu AK, Pal DK. Penile fracture: Our experience in a tertiary care hospital. World J Mens Health. 2015;33(2):95-102. doi:10.5534/wjmh.2015.33.2.95   [Google Scholar]
22.
Rajendra NB,Vikas S, Amit M, Nitin PD, Wagh AT, Saraik SM, et al. Long term outcome of patients with penile fracture undergoing delayed repair. Open J Trauma. 2017;1(2):32-36. doi: 10.17352/ojt.000008   [Google Scholar]
23.
Kumar L, Tiwari R, Arya M C, Sandhu A, Vasudeo V, Baid M. A tertiary center experience of fracture penis: Early surgical management with a clinical diagnosis. UrolSci. 2018;29:298-302.doi:10.4103/UROS.UROS_91_18   [Google Scholar]
24.
Patil B, Kamath SU, Patwardhan SK, Savalia A. Importance of time in management of fracture penis: A prospective study. Urol Ann. 2019;11:405-09.doi:10.4103/UA.UA_80_18   [Google Scholar]
25.
Barros R, Schul A, Ornellas P, Koifman L, Favorito LA. Impact of surgical treatment of penile fracture on sexual function. Urology. 2019;126:128-33. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2018.11.047   [Google Scholar]
26.
Muentener M, Suter S, Hauri D, Sulser T. Long-term experience with surgical and conservative treatment of penile fracture. J Urol. 2004;172(2):576-79. doi:10.1097/01.ju.0000131594.99785.1c   [Google Scholar]
27.
Kozacioglu Z, Kozacioglu Z, Degirmenci T, Arslan M, Yuksel M, B, Gunlusoy B, et al. Long-term significance of the number of hours until surgical repair of penile fractures. UrolInt. 2011;87:75-79. doi: 10.1159/000325589  [Google Scholar]
 
TABLES AND FIGURES
[Table/Fig-1] [Table/Fig-2] [Table/Fig-3] [Table/Fig-4] [Table/Fig-5]
[Table/Fig-6] [Table/Fig-7] [Table/Fig-8]
 
 
 

In This Article

  • Abstract
  • Material and Methods
  • Results
  • Discussion
  • Conclusion
  • References

Article Utilities

  • Readers Comments
  • Article in PDF
  • Citation Manager
  • How to Cite
  • Article Statistics
  • Link to PUBMED
  • Print this Article
  • Send to a Friend

Quick Links

REVIEWER
ACCESS STATISTICS
Home  |  About Us  |  Online First  |  Current Issue  |  Simple Search  |  Advance Search  |  Register  |  Login  |  Contact  |  Privacy Policy  |  Terms of Use
Author Support  |  Submit Manuscript  |  IJARS Pre-Publishing  |  Reviewer  |  Articles Archive  |  Access Statistics
©INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ANATOMY RADIOLOGY & SURGERY (IJARS), ISSN : 2277-8543.
EDITORIAL OFFICE : 1/9, Roop Nagar, Delhi 11000. Phone : 01123848553

* This Journal is owned and run by medical professionals *