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:

Which is guilty in self-induced penile fractures: marital status, culture or geographic region? A case series and literature review

International Journal of Impotence Research volume 25, pages 221–223 (2013)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Penile fracture is a well-recognized and relatively uncommon clinical entity. It was previously reported that the incidence of penile fracture varies according to various geographic regions. In order to determine whether marital status or culture other than geographic region is involved in the etiology of penile fracture in our country, the charts of 122 men diagnosed with penile fracture were retrospectively reviewed. Detailed history including cause, symptoms, country of origin and a single-question self-report of erectile dysfunction was used for all cases. Diagnosis of our cases was mainly based on history and physical examination and ultrasonography. Immediate or delayed surgical repair of penile fracture included a degloving circumferential, and an additional direct incision, if the site of the tear could not be reached via degloving, was performed. The patients were evaluated after 1 week and 1, 3, and 6 months follow-up by penile examination, recording complications, and with a single-question self-report questionnaire after 3 and 6 months. The most common cause of penile fracture was manual bending of the erected penis in 66 out of 122 (54.1%) of our study patients. In our study, we believe that the prime causes of bending the penis are single status and culture, which are influencing factors irrespective of the geographic distribution.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Garaffa G, Raheem AA, Ralph DJ . Penile fracture and penile reconstruction. Curr Urol Rep 2011; 12: 427–431.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Al-Zahrawi AA-QKIA . On fracture of the female pudenda and of the pubic bone and of the male organ. In: Martin S, Spink GL (eds). Albucasis on surgery and instruments 1 edn. University of California Press: Berkeley, 1973 pp 770.

    Google Scholar 

  3. 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  Google Scholar 

  4. Wespes E, Libert M, Simon J, Schulman CC . Fracture of the penis: conservative versus surgical treatment. Eur Urol 1987; 13: 166–168.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. 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 (4 Pt 2): 1657–1667.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Al-Shaiji TF, Amann J, Brock GB . Fractured penis: diagnosis and management. J Sex Med 2009; 6: 3231–3240, quiz 3241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 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 

  8. 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  Google Scholar 

  9. El-Assmy A, El-Tholoth HS, Abou-El-Ghar ME, Mohsen T, Ibrahiem EH . Risk factors of erectile dysfunction and penile vascular changes after surgical repair of penile fracture. Int J Impot Res 2012; 24: 20–25.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Koifman L, Barros R, Junior RA, Cavalcanti AG, Favorito LA . Penile fracture: diagnosis, treatment and outcomes of 150 patients. Urology 2010; 76: 1488–1492.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Acikgoz A, Gokce E, Asci R, Buyukalpelli R, Yilmaz AF, Sarikaya S . Relationship between penile fracture and Peyronie's disease: a prospective study. Int J Impot Res 2011; 23: 165–172.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Zargooshi J . Sexual function and tunica albuginea wound healing following penile fracture: an 18-year follow-up study of 352 patients from Kermanshah, Iran. J Sex Med 2009; 6: 1141–1150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. O’Donnell AB, Araujo AB, Goldstein I, McKinlay JB . The validity of a single-question self-report of erectile dysfunction. Results from the Massachusetts Male Aging Study. J Gen Intern Med 2005; 20: 515–519.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Yapanoglu T, Aksoy Y, Adanur S, Kabadayi B, Ozturk G, Ozbey I . Seventeen years' experience of penile fracture: conservative vs. surgical treatment. J Sex Med 2009; 6: 2058–2063.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Lynch TH, Martinez-Pineiro L, Plas E, Serafetinides E, Turkeri L, Santucci RA et al. EAU guidelines on urological trauma. Eur Urol 2005; 47: 1–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Morey AF, Dugi DD . Genital and lower urinary tract trauma. In: Wein AJ, Kavoussi LR, Novick AC, Partin AW, Peters CA (eds). Campbell-Walsh Urology vol. 4. Saunders: Philadelphia, 2011 pp 2507.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Fetter TR, Gartmen E . Traumatic rupture of penis. Case report. Am J Surg 1936; 32: 371–372.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Aaronson DS, Shindel AWUS . national statistics on penile fracture. J Sex Med 2010; 7: 3226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Haas CA, Brown SL, Spirnak JP . Penile fracture and testicular rupture. World J Urol 1999; 17: 101–106.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. el-Sherif AE, Dauleh M, Allowneh N, Vijayan P . Management of fracture of the penis in Qatar. Br J Urol 1991; 68: 622–625.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Gedik A, Kayan D, Yamis S, Yilmaz Y, Bircan K . The diagnosis and treatment of penile fracture: our 19-year experience. Ulus Travma Acil Cerrahi Derg 2011; 17: 57–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Urology Department, Hamad General Hospital, Doha, Qatar

    A Al Ansari, R A Talib, A Shamsodini, A Hayati, O Canguven & A Al Naimi

Authors
  1. A Al Ansari
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. R A Talib
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. A Shamsodini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. A Hayati
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. O Canguven
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. A Al Naimi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to O Canguven.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Supplementary Information accompanies the paper on International Journal of Impotence Research website

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Al Ansari, A., Talib, R., Shamsodini, A. et al. Which is guilty in self-induced penile fractures: marital status, culture or geographic region? A case series and literature review. Int J Impot Res 25, 221–223 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1038/ijir.2013.16

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/ijir.2013.16

Keywords

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links