Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting 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.

You are viewing this page in draft mode.

Long-term patient-reported outcomes in men with Peyronie’s disease undergoing nonsurgical and nonintralesional injection management


Peyronie’s disease (PD) has a negative impact on overall quality of life for many patients and their partners. There is a significant portion of patients who elect noninvasive therapy and in this scenario we have little data with which to counsel patients. We aim to evaluate long-term patient-reported outcomes in a cohort of men with PD who elected conservative treatment. We identified all males with a diagnosis of PD evaluated at our institution by a single provider between May 2012 and January 2018. We excluded men who were <18 years old or had undergone surgical or intralesional injection (ILI) treatments. A PD-specific questionnaire was sent to those who met our inclusion criteria. 88/514 patients completed the survey and met the inclusion criteria. Penile curvature subjectively improved in 49%, remained stable in 34%, and worsened in 17%. Penile shortening was reported in 89% of patients. Penile shortening subjectively improved in 27%, remained stable in 59%, and worsened in 14%. Roughly 60% reported worsened intercourse satisfaction and erectile function. 60% reported that PD had negatively impacted their self-esteem and 69% felt that PD negatively impacted their sexual partner. Patients who utilized penile traction therapy (PTT) were significantly more likely to report improvements in penile curvature, shortening, and ability to engage in penetrative intercourse. Our survey provides important data on patient-reported outcomes in men with PD electing nonsurgical and non-ILI interventions. Although 49% of men noted at least a mild subjective improvement in their curvature over time, a majority had declining erectile function, decreased intercourse satisfaction, and psychosocial distress. These data can be used when counseling patients with a new diagnosis of PD who are considering treatment options.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.


All prices are NET prices.

Fig. 1: Survey response data regarding perceived changes in penile curvature, pain, and length.
Fig. 2: Survey data regarding patient-reported sexual function changes over time.


  1. 1.

    Al-Thakafi S, Al-Hathal N. Peyronie’s disease: a literature review on epidemiology, genetics, pathophysiology, diagnosis and work-up. Transl Androl Urol. 2016;5:280–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Herati AS, Pastuszak AW. The genetic basis of peyronie disease: a review. Sex Med Rev. 2016;4:85–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Arafa M, Eid H, El-Badry A, Ezz-Eldine K, Shamloul R. The prevalence of Peyronie’s disease in diabetic patients with erectile dysfunction. Int J Impot Res. 2007;19:213–7.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Mulhall JP, Creech SD, Boorjian SA, Ghaly S, Kim ED, Moty A, et al. Subjective and objective analysis of the prevalence of Peyronie’s disease in a population of men presenting for prostate cancer screening. J Urol. 2004;171:2350–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Schwarzer U, Sommer F, Klotz T, Braun M, Reifenrath B, Engelmann U. The prevalence of Peyronie’s disease: results of a large survey. BJU Int. 2001;88:727–30.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Tal R, Heck M, Teloken P, Siegrist T, Nelson CJ, Mulhall JP. Peyronie’s disease following radical prostatectomy: incidence and predictors. J Sex Med. 2010;7:1254–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Tsambarlis P, Levine LA. Nonsurgical management of Peyronie's disease. Nat Rev Urol. 2019;16:172–86.

  8. 8.

    Barrett-Harlow B, Wang R. Oral therapy for Peyronie’s disease, does it work? Transl Androl Urol. 2016;5:296–302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Nehra A, Alterowitz R, Culkin DJ, Faraday MM, Hakim LS, Heidelbaugh JJ, et al. Peyronie’s disease: AUA guideline. J Urol. 2015;194:745–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Moncada I, Krishnappa P, Romero J, et al. Penile traction therapy with the new device 'Penimaster PRO' is effective and safe in the stable phase of Peyronie's disease: a controlled multicentre study. BJU Int. 2019;123:694–702.

  11. 11.

    Martinez-Salamanca JI, Egui A, Moncada I, Minaya J, Ballesteros CM, Del Portillo L, et al. Acute phase Peyronie’s disease management with traction device: a nonrandomized prospective controlled trial with ultrasound correlation. J Sex Med. 2014;11:506–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Gelbard M, Goldstein I, Hellstrom WJ, McMahon CG, Smith T, Tursi J, et al. Clinical efficacy, safety and tolerability of collagenase clostridium histolyticum for the treatment of peyronie disease in 2 large double-blind, randomized, placebo controlled phase 3 studies. J Urol. 2013;190:199–207.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Chung E. Penile reconstructive surgery in peyronie disease: challenges in restoring normal penis size, shape, and function. World J Mens Health. 2020;38:1–8.

  14. 14.

    Raheem OA, Hsieh TC. Penile prosthetic surgery for the management of Peyronie’s disease. Transl Androl Urol. 2017;6:S815–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Nelson CJ, Mulhall JP. Psychological impact of Peyronie’s disease: a review. J Sex Med. 2013;10:653–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Ziegelmann M, Bole R, Avant R, Yang D, Montgomery B, Trost L. Conservatively managed Peyronie’s disease-long-term survey results from patients undergoing nonsurgical and noninjection therapies. Urology. 2018;113:99–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Williams JL, Thomas GG. The natural history of Peyronie’s disease. J Urol. 1970;103:75–6.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Gelbard MK, Dorey F, James K. The natural history of Peyronie’s disease. J Urol. 1990;144:1376–9.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Mulhall JP, Schiff J, Guhring P. An analysis of the natural history of Peyronie’s disease. J Urol. 2006;175:2115–8. discussion 2118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Haney NM, Kohn TP, Nichols PE, Hellstrom W. The effect of adjunct mechanical traction on penile length in men undergoing primary treatment for Peyronie’s disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Urology. 2018;122:110–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Abern MR, Larsen S, Levine LA. Combination of penile traction, intralesional verapamil, and oral therapies for Peyronie’s disease. J Sex Med. 2012;9:288–95.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Davis S, Ferrar S, Sadikaj G, Binik Y, Carrier S. Shame, catastrophizing, and negative partner responses are associated with lower sexual and relationship satisfaction and more negative affect in men with Peyronie’s disease. J Sex Marital Ther. 2017;43:264–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Hellstrom WJ, Feldman R, Rosen RC, Smith T, Kaufman G, Tursi J. Bother and distress associated with Peyronie’s disease: validation of the Peyronie’s disease questionnaire. J Urol. 2013;190:627–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information



Corresponding author

Correspondence to Edward Capoccia.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

LL is a speaker and consultant to Boston Scientific and Coloplast. The other authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Capoccia, E., Ziegelmann, M., Emmerson, J. et al. Long-term patient-reported outcomes in men with Peyronie’s disease undergoing nonsurgical and nonintralesional injection management. Int J Impot Res 33, 75–81 (2021).

Download citation


Quick links