(337) Practice Patterns And Impact Of Pre-Operative Imaging In Penile Fracture: A Retrospective Analysis

J Bahaee,P Bajic,N Parekh,S Lundy,S Vallabhaneni
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jsxmed/qdae167.325
2024-12-12
The Journal of Sexual Medicine
Abstract:Introduction Penile fracture is an uncommon, but potentially devastating urogenital injury characterized by rupture of the tunica albuginea induced by trauma to the erect penis. Immediate repair is associated with a significantly improved prognosis for long-term sexual health. Due to the importance of early surgical intervention, the role of imaging techniques such as ultrasound (US) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in diagnosis is controversial. Typically, the diagnosis of penile fracture is made based on history and physical exam. AUA guidelines recommend imaging as an adjunct study to assist with the diagnosis in equivocal cases. However, there is no clear protocol for the use of supplemental imaging in the literature. Objective To report our review of patients who presented to the emergency department with possible penile fracture to 1) examine practice patterns in the use of pre-operative imaging and 2) assess if pre-operative imaging was associated with prolonged time to the operating room (OR). Methods Electronic medical record data from a single multi-hospital health system from 2011 to 2022 was reviewed. IRB approval was obtained. The retrospective chart review assessed clinical presentation, physical exam findings, subsequent management, operative details (site of injury), imaging modality and erectile function prior to injury. Results A total of 96 patients presented to the emergency department with concern for penile fracture. Three were excluded due to incomplete records. Mean patient age was 47 years. Ten patients (10.8%) underwent MRI and 9 patients (9.7%) underwent penile ultrasound. 71% ultimately underwent surgical intervention. 60% of patients who underwent MRI had findings suggesting penile fracture. 67% of patients who underwent penile ultrasound had findings suggesting penile fracture. Mean time to complete an MRI after it was ordered was 3.85 hours. When comparing the time it took for patients to undergo incision after their initial consultation, we found a notable difference between those who underwent MRI and those who did not (p < .001). On average, patients who had an MRI waited significantly longer-25.09 hours compared to those who did not have imaging, who waited an average of 7.29 hours. Conclusions While obtaining imaging can prolong time to OR, imaging did not prevent early repair of penile fracture, which has superior outcomes. Future studies should explore long term outcomes in patients who did vs did not receive pre-operative imaging. Disclosure Any of the authors act as a consultant, employee or shareholder of an industry for: Halozyme, Endo pharmaceuticals, Coloplast.
urology & nephrology
What problem does this paper attempt to address?