File Download

There are no files associated with this item.

  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

Conference Paper: Review of management of penile fractures at a single institution

TitleReview of management of penile fractures at a single institution
Authors
Issue Date2019
PublisherWiley-Blackwell Publishing Ltd. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.bjui.org/
Citation
The 23rd Hong Kong Urological Assoication Annual Scientific Meeting, Hong Kong, 4 November 2018. In BJU International, v. 123 n. S1 How to Cite?
AbstractObjectives: Penile fracture is rare. Optimal surgical management remains uncertain. Patient and Methods: A retrospective cohort analysis of patients with penile fracture between 2004–2017 was conducted using an institutional database. Patient demographics, etiology of injury, presentation, fracture location, surgical incision used, presence of concomitant urethral injury, and post‐operative complications were analysed. Results: Eight patients were eligible. Mean age was 46.8 years. Six reported coital‐related causes. Two had penile fractures secondary to penile‐manipulation and “accidental fall”. Two patients had associated visible haematuria. All underwent emergency repair with penile‐degloving incisions. Seven had right‐sided corpus cavernosal injury. All patients had ventro‐lateral injury. Only one patient had fracture located in distal penis, caused by penile‐manipulation. Both patients with hematuria had urethral injury. Cystoscopy was only performed in 63% of patients. Two patients reported subjective alteration of erectile function but were able to continue sexual intercourse. Four patients reported wound complications and unsatisfactory wound cosmesis. Conclusion: Degloving incision for the repair of penile fractures was often unnecessary as penile fractures are proximal especially if cause was coitus‐related. Such incision is associated with significant rate of wound‐related complications. A ventral inverted‐V incision may be more favourable. Routine investigations for urethral injury should be advocated.
DescriptionOral Presentation
Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/266482
ISSN
2017 Impact Factor: 4.688
2015 SCImago Journal Rankings: 2.009

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorWong, AHG-
dc.contributor.authorYuen, SKK-
dc.contributor.authorLai, TCT-
dc.contributor.authorTsang, CF-
dc.contributor.authorHo, SHB-
dc.contributor.authorNg, ATL-
dc.contributor.authorMa, WK-
dc.contributor.authorTsu, HLJ-
dc.contributor.authorLam, PW-
dc.date.accessioned2019-01-18T08:20:32Z-
dc.date.available2019-01-18T08:20:32Z-
dc.date.issued2019-
dc.identifier.citationThe 23rd Hong Kong Urological Assoication Annual Scientific Meeting, Hong Kong, 4 November 2018. In BJU International, v. 123 n. S1-
dc.identifier.issn1464-4096-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/266482-
dc.descriptionOral Presentation-
dc.description.abstractObjectives: Penile fracture is rare. Optimal surgical management remains uncertain. Patient and Methods: A retrospective cohort analysis of patients with penile fracture between 2004–2017 was conducted using an institutional database. Patient demographics, etiology of injury, presentation, fracture location, surgical incision used, presence of concomitant urethral injury, and post‐operative complications were analysed. Results: Eight patients were eligible. Mean age was 46.8 years. Six reported coital‐related causes. Two had penile fractures secondary to penile‐manipulation and “accidental fall”. Two patients had associated visible haematuria. All underwent emergency repair with penile‐degloving incisions. Seven had right‐sided corpus cavernosal injury. All patients had ventro‐lateral injury. Only one patient had fracture located in distal penis, caused by penile‐manipulation. Both patients with hematuria had urethral injury. Cystoscopy was only performed in 63% of patients. Two patients reported subjective alteration of erectile function but were able to continue sexual intercourse. Four patients reported wound complications and unsatisfactory wound cosmesis. Conclusion: Degloving incision for the repair of penile fractures was often unnecessary as penile fractures are proximal especially if cause was coitus‐related. Such incision is associated with significant rate of wound‐related complications. A ventral inverted‐V incision may be more favourable. Routine investigations for urethral injury should be advocated.-
dc.languageeng-
dc.publisherWiley-Blackwell Publishing Ltd. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.bjui.org/-
dc.relation.ispartofBJU International-
dc.rightsPreprint This is the pre-peer reviewed version of the following article: [FULL CITE], which has been published in final form at [Link to final article using the DOI]. This article may be used for non-commercial purposes in accordance with Wiley Terms and Conditions for Use of Self-Archived Versions. Postprint This is the peer reviewed version of the following article: [FULL CITE], which has been published in final form at [Link to final article using the DOI]. This article may be used for non-commercial purposes in accordance with Wiley Terms and Conditions for Use of Self-Archived Versions.-
dc.titleReview of management of penile fractures at a single institution-
dc.typeConference_Paper-
dc.identifier.emailHo, SHB: hobrian@hku.hk-
dc.identifier.emailNg, ATL: ada5022@hku.hk-
dc.identifier.emailMa, WK: mwk054@hku.hk-
dc.identifier.emailTsu, HLJ: jamestsu@hku.hk-
dc.identifier.emailLam, PW: lamwayne@hku.hk-
dc.identifier.authorityLam, PW=rp02305-
dc.description.naturelink_to_OA_fulltext-
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/bju.14677-
dc.identifier.hkuros296739-
dc.identifier.volume123-
dc.identifier.issueS1-
dc.publisher.placeUnited Kingdom-

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats