|LETTER TO THE EDITOR
|Year : 2019 | Volume
| Issue : 2 | Page : 85
Re: A tertiary center experience of fracture penis – A clinical diagnosis
Lalit Kumar, MC Arya
Department of Urology, Sardar Patel Medical College, Bikaner, Rajasthan, India
|Date of Submission||14-Jan-2019|
|Date of Decision||16-Jan-2019|
|Date of Acceptance||17-Jan-2019|
|Date of Web Publication||28-Mar-2019|
Flat No. 102, Tower A1, Unitech the Residencies, Sector 33, Gurgaon, Haryana
Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None
|How to cite this article:|
Kumar L, Arya M C. Re: A tertiary center experience of fracture penis – A clinical diagnosis. Urol Sci 2019;30:85
We would like to express thanks for reading our article with great interest and for taking the time to raise specific concerns. Weee with your comments that the role of imaging investigation in penile fracture should be discussed. As the primary goal of our study was not to evaluate the efficacy of imaging in penile fracture, so it was not discussed in detail. We acknowledge your concerns regarding the usefulness of radiological imaging. We mentioned in our article that imagings such as ultrasonography (USG), magnetic resonance imaging, computed tomography, cavernosography, or urethrography may be required for better evaluation in clinically suspicio s cases, and usually, it is unnecessary.
The use of USG as a routine diagnostic method is also controversial. In one study, Beysel et al. noticed USG inaccuracy of 15% of patients in a series of 13 cases. Considering penile fracture a urological emergency, we believed in urgent exploration based on the clinical diagnosis. As similarly described by Amit et al. and Reis et al., we went for immediate exploration without wasting money and time on investigations., Although your queries are based on case reports, we still agree that the use of radiological imaging may save the patients from unnecessary surgeries in equivocal cases. However, we also stick to our point that imagings should not be used routinely in penile fracture management as described in a standard textbook and in a recent article by Naouar et al.,
Financial support and sponsorship
Conflicts of interest
There are no conflicts of interest.
| References|| |
Sawh SL, O'Leary MP, Ferreira MD, Berry AM, Maharaj D. Fractured penis: A review. Int J Impot Res 2008;20:366-9.
Beysel M, Tekin A, Gürdal M, Yücebaş E, Sengör F. Evaluation and treatment of penile fractures: Accuracy of clinical diagnosis and the value of corpus cavernosography. Urology 2002;60:492-6.
Amit A, Arun K, Bharat B, Navin R, Sameer T, Shankar DU, et al.
Penile fracture and associated urethral injury: Experience at a tertiary care hospital. Can Urol Assoc J 2013;7:E168-70.
Reis LO, Cartapatti M, Marmiroli R, de Oliveira Júnior EJ, Saade RD, Fregonesi A, et al.
Mechanisms predisposing penile fracture and long-term outcomes on erectile and voiding functions. Adv Urol 2014;2014:768158.
Morey AF, Zhao LC. Genital and lower urinary tract trauma. In: Wein AJ, Kavoussi LR, Partin AW, Peters CA, editors. Campbell-Walsh Urology. 11th
ed. Philadelphia: Elsevier; 2016. p. 2379-80.
Naouar S, Boussaffa H, Braiek S, Kamel RE. Management of penile fracture: Can it wait? Afr J Urol 2018;24:56-9.