Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Original Article
  • Published:

Comparison of different approaches to the surgical treatment of penile fractures: quicker return to sexual function with longitudinal incisions

International Journal of Impotence Research volume 28, pages 155–159 (2016)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

The objective of this study was to compare the long-term clinical outcomes from longitudinal incisions and subcoronal circumferential degloving incisions in the surgical treatment of penile fractures. From July 2001 to July 2014, 23 patients were identified with penile fractures. Fourteen patients underwent longitudinal incisions after ultrasound localization; nine patients underwent subcoronal circumferential degloving incisions. Sexual function was evaluated preoperatively and postoperatively using an abridged International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF) questionnaire. The mean (±s.d.) operative time was 19.1 (±3.9) min in the longitudinal incision group and was 45.1 (±6.5) min in the subcoronal circumferential degloving incision group (P<0.05). The mean (±s.d.) times required to recover sexual function were 35.6 (±6.0) days in the longitudinal incision group and 54.0 (±5.8) days in the circumferential incision group (P<0.05). Six months postoperatively, the erectile functions of all cases were comparable to the level preoperatively except three patients. One patient from each group reported symptoms associated with mild ED, but they experienced satisfying sexual orgasms after psychotherapy for 2 months. Another patient’s score on the IIEF-5 declined from 25 to 24 points in the circumferential incision group 10 months postoperatively, and this was associated with maintaining an erection after vaginal penetration. In conclusion, the longitudinal incision may allow quicker return to sexual function but not necessarily improved the long-term clinical outcomes. Furthermore, postoperative psychosocial nursing and psychotherapy should receive more attention.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1
Figure 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Kamdar C, Mooppan UM, Kim H, Gulmi FA . Penile fracture: preoperative evaluation and surgical technique for optimal patient outcome. BJU Int 2008; 102: 1640–1644.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Penson DF, Seftel AD, Krane RJ, Frohrib D, Goldstein I . The hemodynamic pathophysiology of impotence following blunt trauma to the erect penis. J Urol 1992; 148: 1171–1180.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Ateyah A, Mostafa T, Nasser TA, Shaeer O, Hadi AA, Al-Gabbar MA . Penile fracture: surgical repair and late effects on erectile function. J Sex Med 2008; 5: 1496–1502.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Rivas JG, Dorrego JM, Hernández MM, Portella PF, González SP, Valle JA et al. Traumatic rupture of the corpus cavernosum: surgical management and clinical outcomes. A 30 years review. Cent European J Urol 2014; 67: 88–92.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Creecy AA, Beazlie FS . Fracture of the penis: traumatic rupture of corpora cavernosa. J Urol 1957; 78: 620–627.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. McAninch JW, Santucci RA. Genitourinary trauma. In: Walsh PC, Retik AB, Vaughan ED Jr, Wein AJ (eds). Campbell’s Urology, 8th edn. WB Saunders: Philadelphia, USA, 2002; pp 3707–3714.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Fernstrom U . Rupture of the penis. Report of one operated case and review of literature. Acta Chir Scand 1957; 113: 211–217.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Muentener M, Suter S, Hauri D, Sulser T . Long-term experience with surgical and conservative treatment of penile fracture. J Urol 2004; 172: 576–579.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Gamal WM, Osman MM, Hammady A, Aldahshoury MZ, Hussein MM, Saleem M . Penile fracture: long-term results of surgical and conservative management. J Trauma 2011; 71: 491–493.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Ralph D, Gonzalez-Cadavid N, Mirone V, Perovic S, Sohn M, Usta M et al. Trauma, gender reassignment, and penile augmentation. J Sex Med 2010; 7 (Pt 2): 1657–1667.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Mazaris EM, Livadas K, Chalikopoulos D, Bisas A, Deliveliotis C, Skolarikos A . Penile fractures: immediate surgical approach with a midline ventral incision. BJU Int 2009; 104: 520–523.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Naraynsingh V, Maharaj D, Kuruvilla T, Ramsewak R . Simple repair of fractured penis. J R Coll Surg Edinb 1998; 43: 97–98.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Rosen RC, Cappelleri JC, Smith MD, Lipsky J, Peña BM . Development and evaluation of an abridged, 5-item version of the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF-5) as a diagnostic tool for erectile dysfunction. Int J Impot Res 1999; 11: 319–326.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Elke N . Fracture of the penis. Br J Surg 2002; 89: 555–565.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Pandyan GV, Zaharani AB, Al Rashid M . Fracture penis: an analysis of 26 cases. ScientificWorldJournal 2006; 6: 2327–2333.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Ganem JP, Kennelly MJ . Ruptured Mondor’s disease of the penis mimicking penile fracture. J Urol 1998; 159: 1302.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Fazeli-Matin S, Montague DK, Angermeier KW, Lakin MM . Penile fracture after intracavernous injection therapy. J Urol 1998; 159: 2094.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. El-Bahnasawy MS, Gomha MA . Penile fractures: the successful outcome of immediate surgical intervention. Int J Impot Res 2000; 12: 273–277.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Kramer AC . Penile fracture seems more likely during sex under stressful situations. J Sex Med 2011; 8: 3414–3417.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Reis LO, Cartapatti M, Marmiroli R, de Oliveira Júnior EJ, Destro Saade R, Fregonesi A . Mechanisms predisposing penile fracture and long-term outcomes on erectile and voiding functions. Adv Urol 2014; 2014: 768158.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Mydlo JH, Hayyeri M, Macchia RJ . Urethrography and cavernosography imaging in a small series of penile fractures: a comparison with surgical findings. Urology 1998; 51: 616–619.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Fergany AF, Angermeier KW, Montague DK . Review of Cleveland Clinic experience with penile fracture. Urology 1999; 54: 352–355.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Uygur MC, Gülerkaya B, Altuğ U, Germiyanoğlu C, Erol D . 13 years’ experience of penile fracture. Scand J Urol Nephrol 1997; 31: 265–266.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Zargooshi J . Penile fracture in Kermanshah, Iran: the long-term results of surgical treatment. BJU Int 2002; 89: 890–894.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Antonini G, Vicini P, Sansalone S, Garaffa G, Vitarelli A, De Berardinis E, De Berardinis E et al. Penile fracture: penoscrotal approach with degloving of penis after magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Arch Ital Urol Androl 2014; 28: 39–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Kervancioglu S, Ozkur A, Bayram MM . Color Doppler sonographic findings in penile fracture. J Clin Ultrasound 2005; 33: 38–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Nomura JT, Sierzenski PR . Ultrasound diagnosis of penile fracture. J Emerg Med 2010; 38: 362–365.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. el-Assmy A, el-Tholoth HS, Mohsen T, Ibrahiem el-HI . Does timing of presentation of penile fracture affect outcome of surgical intervention? Urology 2011; 77: 1388–1391.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Nasser TA, Mostafa T . Delayed surgical repair of penile fracture under local anesthesia. J Sex Med 2008; 5: 2464–2469.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Mydlo JH, Gershbein AB, Macchia RJ . Nonoperative treatment of patients with presumed penile fracture. J Urol 2001; 165: 424–425.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. 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: 472–476.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Moslemi MK . Evaluation of epidemiology, concomitant urethral disruption and seasonal variation of penile fracture: a report of 86 cases. Can Urol Assoc J 2013; 7: e572–e575.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Al-Shaiji TF, Amann J, Brock GB . Fractured penis: diagnosis and management. J Sex Med 2009; 6: 3231–3240.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Hatzichristodoulou G, Dorstewitz A, Gschwend JE, Herkommer K, Zantl N . Surgical management of penile fracture and long-term outcome on erectile function and voiding. J Sex Med 2013; 10: 1424–1430.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Minor TX, Brant WO, Rahman NU, Lue TF . Approach to management of penile fracture in men with underlying Peyronie’s disease. Urology 2006; 68: 858–861.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. De Rose AF, Giglio M, Carmignani G . Traumatic rupture of the corpora cavernosa: new physiopathologic acquisitions. Urology 2001; 57: 319–322.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Gu RG, Quan GT, Song W, Nie XP, Zhang SJ . Penile fracture with 6 case reports. Chin J Urol 1999; 20: 748.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Ibrahiem el-HI, el-Tholoth HS, Mohsen T, Hekal IA, el-Assmy A . Penile fracture: long-term outcome of immediate surgical intervention. Urology 2010; 75: 108–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the General Programs of the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Nos. 81370860 and 81070605), Pudong Health Bureau of Shanghai (PW2013D-3), Key Disciplines Group Construction Project of Pudong Bureau of Shanghai (PWZxq2014-11) and the Biomedical Engineering Research Fund of Shanghai Jiao Tong University (No. YG2011MS14). We sincerely thank Dr Selcuk Yucel for his excellent technical assistance during this work.

Author information

Author notes

  1. M X Xu and Z Zhou: These authors contributed equally to this work and are regarded as co-first authors.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, Shanghai Ninth People’s Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China

    M X Xu, Z Zhou, H J Yao, K Zhang, J Da, M Zhang, Z Wang & M J Lu

Authors
  1. M X Xu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Z Zhou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. H J Yao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. K Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. J Da
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. M Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Z Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. M J Lu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Z Wang or M J Lu.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Xu, M., Zhou, Z., Yao, H. et al. Comparison of different approaches to the surgical treatment of penile fractures: quicker return to sexual function with longitudinal incisions. Int J Impot Res 28, 155–159 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1038/ijir.2016.13

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/ijir.2016.13

Search

Advanced search

Quick links