Diagnostic performance of MRI and US in suspicion of penile fracture.
Diagnostic accuracy
imaging
magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)
penile fracture (PF)
ultrasound (US)
Journal
Translational andrology and urology
ISSN: 2223-4691
Titre abrégé: Transl Androl Urol
Pays: China
ID NLM: 101581119
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Mar 2022
Mar 2022
Historique:
received:
29
10
2021
accepted:
22
12
2021
entrez:
11
4
2022
pubmed:
12
4
2022
medline:
12
4
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Penile fracture (PF) is defined as rupture of the tunica albuginea of the corpora cavernosa. While most authors agree that rapid surgical therapy of this rare pathology leads to the best patient outcome, the role of imaging is highly controversial in the published literature. To obtain further evidence concerning the diagnostic accuracies of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and ultrasound (US) in the diagnostic assessment of patients with suspected PF. We systematically reviewed MRI and US examinations performed in our institution between 2000 and 2021 and correlated imaging reports with either intraoperative finding or final clinical diagnosis. Inclusion criteria were: (I) patient age ≥18 years, (II) examination between 2000 and 2021, (III) information available on patient's history and clinical presentation, and (IV) documented final diagnosis in discharge letter. Next to diagnostic accuracy, we describe typical imaging findings such as penile hematoma, tear of the tunica albuginea including location in terms of side and shaft segment affected, and involvement of corpus spongiosum. Overall, 46 of 88 included patients (54.5%) had a confirmed diagnosis of PF. A total of 69 MRI and 31 US examinations were included. Sensitivity and specificity were 91.9% (95% CI: 78.7-97.2%) and 90.6% (95% CI: 75.8-96.8%) for MRI and 71.4% (95% CI: 45.4-88.3%) and 100.0% (95% CI: 81.6-100.0%) for US, respectively. The results of the present study suggest that MRI is more suitable to confirm PF and identify the site of the associated tunica albuginea tear while US is a good tool for ruling out PF.
Sections du résumé
Background
UNASSIGNED
Penile fracture (PF) is defined as rupture of the tunica albuginea of the corpora cavernosa. While most authors agree that rapid surgical therapy of this rare pathology leads to the best patient outcome, the role of imaging is highly controversial in the published literature. To obtain further evidence concerning the diagnostic accuracies of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and ultrasound (US) in the diagnostic assessment of patients with suspected PF.
Methods
UNASSIGNED
We systematically reviewed MRI and US examinations performed in our institution between 2000 and 2021 and correlated imaging reports with either intraoperative finding or final clinical diagnosis. Inclusion criteria were: (I) patient age ≥18 years, (II) examination between 2000 and 2021, (III) information available on patient's history and clinical presentation, and (IV) documented final diagnosis in discharge letter. Next to diagnostic accuracy, we describe typical imaging findings such as penile hematoma, tear of the tunica albuginea including location in terms of side and shaft segment affected, and involvement of corpus spongiosum.
Results
UNASSIGNED
Overall, 46 of 88 included patients (54.5%) had a confirmed diagnosis of PF. A total of 69 MRI and 31 US examinations were included. Sensitivity and specificity were 91.9% (95% CI: 78.7-97.2%) and 90.6% (95% CI: 75.8-96.8%) for MRI and 71.4% (95% CI: 45.4-88.3%) and 100.0% (95% CI: 81.6-100.0%) for US, respectively.
Conclusions
UNASSIGNED
The results of the present study suggest that MRI is more suitable to confirm PF and identify the site of the associated tunica albuginea tear while US is a good tool for ruling out PF.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35402188
doi: 10.21037/tau-21-957
pii: tau-11-03-377
pmc: PMC8984979
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
377-385Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Informations de copyright
2022 Translational Andrology and Urology. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Conflicts of Interest: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form (available at https://tau.amegroups.com/article/view/10.21037/tau-21-957/coif). The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.
Références
BMJ Case Rep. 2019 Jul 19;12(7):
pubmed: 31326912
Scand J Urol. 2017 Apr;51(2):170-175
pubmed: 28125311
Urol Int. 2016;96(3):315-29
pubmed: 26953932
Br J Surg. 2002 May;89(5):555-65
pubmed: 11972544
Investig Clin Urol. 2017 Jul;58(4):255-260
pubmed: 28681035
Urology. 2010 Dec;76(6):1488-92
pubmed: 20708223
J Urol. 2019 Sep;202(3):552-557
pubmed: 30840543
Int Urol Nephrol. 2017 Jun;49(6):937-945
pubmed: 28258528
Sex Med Rev. 2018 Apr;6(2):253-260
pubmed: 28874325
Int Braz J Urol. 2020 May-Jun;46(3):409-416
pubmed: 32167705
BMJ Case Rep. 2017 Sep 23;2017:
pubmed: 28942396
Radiologia. 2013 Mar-Apr;55(2):154-9
pubmed: 22115279
Arch Ital Urol Androl. 2016 Mar 31;88(1):68-9
pubmed: 27072182
Radiol Med. 2019 Dec;124(12):1270-1280
pubmed: 31302847
BJU Int. 2008 Dec;102(11):1640-4; discussion 1644
pubmed: 18710448
Andrology. 2015 May;3(3):632-6
pubmed: 26013107
BJU Int. 2021 Nov;128(5):575-585
pubmed: 33528886
Ultraschall Med. 2015 Aug;36(4):315-7
pubmed: 26241118