Epidemiology of Penile Fractures in United States Emergency Departments: Access to Care Disparities May Lead to Suboptimal Outcomes

Comparison of erectile and ejaculatory functional outcomes between unilateral and bilateral cavernosal rupture in penile fractures

This study aimed to compare the erectile and ejaculatory functional outcomes of unilateral and bilateral ruptures of the corpus cavernosum in penile fractures. Sixty patients' data were analyzed retrospectively between June 2020 and January 2023. The patients were divided into two groups based on the affected corpus cavernosum (unilateral and bilateral). Preoperative and postoperative 3rd-, 6th-, and 12th-month self-estimated intravaginal-ejaculation-latency-time (IELT), and international index of erectile function-erectile function (IIEF-EF) scores as well as the presence of urethral injury were compared. Bilateral corpus cavernosum fractures were detected in 18.3% of the patients. The IIEF-EF scores of both groups at 3rd-, 6th-, and 12th-month were found to be significantly lower than the preoperative scores (unilateral group:24.1 ± 2.7 vs 23.2 ± 3.5 and 23.3 ± 3.4, respectively, p = 0.011 and 0.014, respectively; bilateral group: 24 ± 1.9 vs 23 ± 1.8 and 23.2 ± 1.5, respectively, p = 0.027 and 0.047, respectively). No significant difference was found between the preoperative and the postoperative 12th month IIEF-EF scores in either group (unilateral group: 24.1 ± 2.7 vs 23.4 ± 3.6, p = 0.207;bilateral group:24 ± 1.9 vs 23.2 ± 1.5, p = 0.057). The self-estimated IELTs of both groups at the postoperative 3rd, 6th, and 12th months demonstrated a significant increase from the preoperative values (unilateral group: 221.6 ± 81.8 vs 252 ± 94.6, 256.5 ± 97.6, and 250.5 ± 104.8, respectively, p < 0.001; bilateral group:241.8 ± 61.6 vs 278.1 ± 55.4, 281.8 ± 56.1, and 283.6 ± 54.2, respectively, p = 0.041, 0.030, and 0.047, respectively). The changes in self-estimated IELTs and IIEF-EF scores between the preoperative period and the postoperative 3rd, 6th, and 12th-months were compared, and no statistical difference was found between patients with unilateral and bilateral corpus cavernosum fractures (p > 0.05). In conclusion, no significant difference in erectile function was found in either group at the 12-month follow-up, and the self-estimated IELTs were found to be prolonged in both groups. Furthermore, no difference was noted between the groups at any follow-up. To explain the effects of unilateral and bilateral injuries on erectile and ejaculatory functions, further studies with a larger-number of patients are necessary.

Optimal timing of surgical intervention for penile fracture: a narrative review of the modern literature

INTRODUCTION

Penile fracture is traditionally considered a surgical emergency warranting immediate repair with the goal to maximize long-term erectile function and minimize penile curvature. Nonetheless, consensus on the optimal timing for penile fracture repair remains to be elucidated and is the subject of continued research efforts.

OBJECTIVES

This review aims to summarize the contemporary literature pertaining to optimal timing of penile fracture repair and associated outcomes.

METHODS

We queried PubMed/MEDLINE and Google Scholar for relevant articles published between 2012 and 2022 to evaluate the most recent literature on the queried topic of early vs delayed intervention for penile fracture. All examined review articles were published within the last decade but may have included analyses of studies published prior to 2012. Reference lists of articles and reviews were manually reviewed to identify additional relevant articles.

RESULTS

We identified 16 articles that met inclusion criteria: 12 primary articles and 4 systematic reviews or meta-analyses. Importantly, definitions of early and delayed intervention varied greatly among studies, making quantitative comparison challenging. In summary, 6 primary studies and 2 systematic review articles favored early intervention. There were also 6 primary studies and 2 systematic review articles suggesting equivocal outcomes between early and delayed repair. No articles demonstrated improved outcomes with delayed repair relative to early intervention.

CONCLUSION

Surgical intervention for penile fracture remains the gold standard, with superior long-term sexual and functional outcomes when compared with conservative management. Optimal timing of penile fracture repair remains to be elucidated with data limited by low incidence, resulting in small case series and a lack of randomized controlled trials. Nonetheless, recent data suggest that a brief delay in surgical intervention for patients presenting with penile fractures does not affect long-term sexual and functional outcomes.

Penile fractures: the price of a merry Christmas

OBJECTIVES

To explore whether Christmas might be a risk factor for penile fractures due to the Christmas spirit related to the intimacy and euphoria of these holly jolly days.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We evaluated the incidence of penile fractures during Christmas and New Year's Eve through the GeRmAn Nationwide inpatient Data (GRAND) from the Research Data Center of the Federal Bureau of Statistics (Wiesbaden, Germany). Furthermore, we assessed the impact of COVID-19 on penile fractures and their seasonality.

RESULTS

A total of 3,421 patients with a median, interquartile range (IQR) age of 42 (32-51) years had a penile fracture requiring a hospital stay from 2005 to 2021. In all, 40 (1.2%) penile fractures occurred in 51 days of Christmas (from 24/12 to 26/12 in each year). The daily incidence of penile fractures during Christmas was 0.78 with an incidence rate ratio (IRR) of 1.43 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.05-1.95, P = 0.02). If every day was like Christmas, 43% more penile fractures would have occurred in Germany from 2005 on. Interestingly, only 28 (0.82%) penile fractures occurred during the New Year's Eve period (31/12 to 02/01 from 2005 to 2021). This resulted in an IRR of 0.98 (95% CI 0.69-1.5, P = 0.98) in the New Year's Eve period. Most patients with penile fractures were admitted to hospital at the weekend (n = 1,322; IRR 1.58, 95% CI 1.48-1.69; P < 0.001). Summer was also associated with more penile fractures (n = 929; IRR 1.11, 95% CI 1.03-1.19; P = 0.008). Both the COVID-19 pandemic (n = 385; IRR 1.06, 95% CI 0.95-1.18, P = 0.29) and its lockdown period (n = 93; IRR 1, 95% CI 0.82-1.23; P = 0.96) did not affect the incidence of penile fractures.

CONCLUSION

The incidence of penile fractures displays a seasonality. Last Christmas penile fractures occurred more often. This year to save us from tears, we will NOT do something special (the new Christmas hit of the year).

A penile fracture hidden behind a urethral bleeding

Penile fracture with urethral injury is uncommon. Diagnosis is usually based on clinical history and physical examination. Nonetheless, atypical presentation obliges complementary examinations to be performed. We report a case of a 45-years-old man with urethral bleeding after a blunt penile trauma that was ultimately diagnosed as having a cavernous body laceration on top of an urethral rupture.

Penile fracture: A case report

INTRODUCTION AND IMPORTANCE

Penile fracture, resulting from trauma to an erect penis, is a rare urogenital injury with potentially serious complications including erectile dysfunction. This case report emphasizes the significance of prompt recognition, accurate diagnosis, and timely surgical management to optimize patient outcomes.

CASE PRESENTATION

The case involves a 34-year-old male presenting with acute pain, swelling, and a visibly deformed penis following sexual intercourse. Clinical examination confirmed the diagnosis of penile fracture, leading to surgical repair of the tunica albuginea. The patient had an uneventful post-operative recovery and received appropriate post-operative instructions.

CLINICAL DISCUSSION

A penile fracture is a rare but serious injury occurs due to a tear in the tunica albuginea that can occur during vigorous sexual activity causing sudden pain, swelling, and produce a popping sound. Classical presentation often leads to establish a clinical diagnosis. However, immediate surgical exploration and repair is needed for better outcomes and to prevent long term complications such as erectile dysfunction or curvature of the penis that are associated with relying solely on conservative management. Delayed presentation also affects the optimal outcomes of surgery.

CONCLUSION

This report highlights the importance of early surgical intervention, the impact of delayed presentation, and the need for increased awareness regarding penile fractures. This case adds to the existing surgical literature by providing insights into the clinical presentation and management of penile fractures. The comprehensive overview of the case contributes to a better understanding of penile fractures and their management, helping healthcare professionals, improves patient care and outcomes.

Urethral rupture concomitant with penile fracture does not adversely affect functional outcomes

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this study was to identify possible risk factors for urethral rupture and to evaluate the effect of urethral rupture repair on long-term functional outcomes and complications.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The medical records of consecutive penile fracture patients were retrospectively reviewed. Penile fracture patients with and without urethral rupture were compared according to demographics, clinical and intraoperative findings. Comparisons of postoperative functional results of the groups were performed using the 5-item version of the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF-5) and the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS). Finally, among them, long-term penile complications including penile curvature, painful erection, palpable nodule, and paresthesia were assessed.

RESULTS

Fifty-three patients participated. Patients with urethral rupture (n = 8) were older (44.50 ± 10.69, 36.58 ± 10.33 years, p = 0.052). There was no significant difference in fracture etiology (p = 0.64). Urethral bleeding was present only in patients with urethral rupture (p < 0.001). Although no bilateral corpus cavernosum rupture was encountered in penile fracture patients without urethral rupture, this rate was significantly higher in those with urethral rupture at a rate of 62.5% (p < 0.001). The time from surgical repair to sexual activity was similar in both groups (p = 0.66). There was no significant difference in IPSS and IIEF-5 scores, the presence of erectile dysfunction and complication rates (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Older age is a possible risk factor for a concomitant urethral rupture with penile fracture and it seems to be associated with urethral bleeding and bilateral corpus cavernosum involvement. Additionally, urethral rupture repair neither adversely affected functional outcomes nor increased penile complication rates.

Design and assessment of a penile fracture simulation model

OBJECTIVE

To design and assess a novel penile fracture simulation model for teaching penile fracture repair.

METHODS

We used a validated circumcision simulator to create a model. Foreskin for a circumcision was divided into two halves. A transverse slit ("simulated fracture") was created on one part of the first half of the foreskin (mimicking "tunica") and was applied over the penile model. A red jelly tablet ("clot") was placed underneath the cut. A second full-length of foreskin was applied over it to cover the defect. The model was assessed by participants and expert faculty at the Urology Simulation Boot Camp. Evaluation was performed using a 5-point Likert Scale questionnaire. Data was analysed using Microsoft Excel and IBM SPSS Statistics V25. The intra-class correlation was calculated using a "One-way random model".

RESULTS

Twenty-two urology trainees and four experts participated in the evaluation. The majority of trainees strongly agreed (59%, n = 13) the model is useful for training with experts similarly agreeing in 75% of cases. The appearance of penile fracture was considered good by both trainees (68%, n = 14) and faculty (75%). Overall, the ability of the model to represent a realistic simulation of the task was considered excellent by 23% of participants and good by 64%. Personal confidence after simulation in managing a similar situation was considered high among trainees. The main difficulties reported were related to fascial planes and urethra.

CONCLUSION

This is the first simulation model for penile fracture repair and has demonstrated face validity at a national urology bootcamp.

Design and assessment of a penile fracture simulation model

OBJECTIVE

To design and assess a novel penile fracture simulation model for teaching penile fracture repair.

METHODS

We used a validated circumcision simulator to create a model. Foreskin for a circumcision was divided into two halves. A transverse slit ("simulated fracture") was created on one part of the first half of the foreskin (mimicking "tunica") and was applied over the penile model. A red jelly tablet ("clot") was placed underneath the cut. A second full-length of foreskin was applied over it to cover the defect. The model was assessed by participants and expert faculty at the Urology Simulation Boot Camp. Evaluation was performed using a 5-point Likert Scale questionnaire. Data was analysed using Microsoft Excel and IBM SPSS Statistics V25. The intra-class correlation was calculated using a "One-way random model".

RESULTS

Twenty-two urology trainees and four experts participated in the evaluation. The majority of trainees strongly agreed (59%, n=13) the model is useful for training with experts similarly agreeing in 75% of cases. The appearance of penile fracture was considered good by both trainees (68%, n=14) and faculty (75%). Overall, the ability of the model to represent a realistic simulation of the task was considered excellent by 23% of participants and good by 64%. Personal confidence after simulation in managing a similar situation was considered high among trainees. The main difficulties reported were related to fascial planes and urethra.

CONCLUSION

This is the first simulation model for penile fracture repair and has demonstrated face validity at a national urology bootcamp.

Risk factors for penile fracture compared with a surgical control cohort in the United States: the role of substance abuse

Penile fracture (PF) is a surgical emergency. Given its rarity, we queried a national cohort over an 11-year period to study the temporal and demographic variations in presentation, evaluation, and management of patients with PF compared with a cohort of control patients. The National Inpatient Sample was queried between the years 2005 and 2016 for patients with a diagnosis of PF. Appendectomy patients were selected as a control cohort, given the non-discriminatory nature of this disease. Clinical and demographic data of the patients were compared with that of controls. Presenting symptoms, rates of surgical repair, and rates of associated surgical procedures were evaluated in the PF cohort. During the study period, 5802 patients were hospitalized for PF. The annual incidence of PF remained unchanged at 1.0-1.8 cases per 100 000 hospitalizations over the study period. Compared with the control cohort, PF patients were more likely to be younger (38.7 years vs 41.2 years, P ≤ 0.001), have lower rates of comorbidities except erectile dysfunction (1.4% vs 0.1%, P ≤ 0.001), and were more likely of Black race (25.4% vs 6.2%, P ≤ 0.001). Notably, PF patients had significantly higher rates of substance abuse (26.4% vs 18.1%, P ≤ 0.001), despite no difference in the diagnosed psychiatric disorders. PF rarely presented with hematuria (3.5%); however, urethral evaluation was performed in 23.1%, most commonly with cystoscopy (19.2%). PF occurs more commonly in a younger, healthier male population, and among minorities. Importantly, rates of substance abuse appear to be higher in the PF cohort compared with those of controls.