Is Penile Doppler Ultrasonography Overdiagnosed?
arterial insufficiency
indication
penile doppler ultrasound
vasculogenic pathology
venous insufficiency
Journal
Cureus
ISSN: 2168-8184
Titre abrégé: Cureus
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101596737
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Mar 2023
Mar 2023
Historique:
accepted:
21
03
2023
medline:
24
4
2023
pubmed:
24
4
2023
entrez:
24
04
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The objective of this study was to determine whether penile Doppler ultrasonography (USG) examinations, combined with the administration of intracavernosal vasoactive agents, were correctly performed as a second-line diagnostic method with the proper indications in a select patient group. A total of 200 patients who underwent penile Doppler ultrasounds in our clinic were included in the study. Patients' demographic data were collected, information about their medical-sexual history was taken, physical examinations were performed, and laboratory analyses were conducted. Patients were informed in detail about the process, and their consent was given prior to the study. Procedure outcomes and complications were also recorded. The relationship of vasculogenic pathologies was analysed, and the rate of abnormal results and complications was compared with the existing literature. Following the investigations, abnormal results were found in 24.5% of patients, while this rate was 6.8% in patients under the age of 40. Arterial insufficiency was found in 31 patients and venous insufficiency in 18 patients. Five patients had both pathologic conditions. No statistically significant correlation was found between arterial insufficiency and age, while venous insufficiency was significantly correlated with age (p=0.006). Penile Doppler ultrasounds should only be ordered for a carefully selected patient group. Ordering ultrasounds without a proper indication can result in unnecessary labour and financial loss, as well as an increase in invasive procedures.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37090351
doi: 10.7759/cureus.36450
pmc: PMC10116432
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
e36450Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2023, Salman et al.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Références
Radiology. 1985 Jun;155(3):777-81
pubmed: 3890009
J Sex Med. 2013 Jan;10(1):120-9
pubmed: 22970798
Eur Urol. 2021 Sep;80(3):333-357
pubmed: 34183196
Urology. 2003 Dec;62(6):1097-102
pubmed: 14665363
J Sex Med. 2016 Aug;13(8):1166-82
pubmed: 27436074
J Sex Med. 2010 Jan;7(1 Pt 2):445-75
pubmed: 20092448
World J Mens Health. 2017 Apr;35(1):22-27
pubmed: 28459144
J Urol. 2000 Feb;163(2):460-3
pubmed: 10647654
J Sex Med. 2010 Apr;7(4 Pt 2):1598-607
pubmed: 20388160
Int Urol Nephrol. 2020 Jun;52(6):1015-1025
pubmed: 32072389
J Pak Med Assoc. 2006 Jun;56(6):258-61
pubmed: 16827247
Int J Androl. 2005 Dec;28 Suppl 2:61-3
pubmed: 16236067
Urol Int. 2005;75(1):75-9
pubmed: 16037713
J Sex Med. 2013 Jul;10(7):1833-41
pubmed: 23651423
Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 2013 May;17(10):1382-8
pubmed: 23740453
Arch Ital Urol Androl. 2014 Mar 28;86(1):9-14
pubmed: 24704924
World J Mens Health. 2016 Apr;34(1):1-8
pubmed: 27169123
J Sex Med. 2013 Jan;10(1):108-10
pubmed: 22524416
Int J Impot Res. 2003 Feb;15(1):63-71
pubmed: 12605242
Int J Impot Res. 1994 Jun;6(2):93-7
pubmed: 7951703
Urology. 1988 Feb;31(2):114-5
pubmed: 3341094
Lancet. 1985 Jan 26;1(8422):181-4
pubmed: 2857264
Int J Impot Res. 2014 May-Jun;26(3):120
pubmed: 24824454
Int J Impot Res. 2006 May-Jun;18(3):306-10
pubmed: 16319943
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1989 Dec;153(6):1149-53
pubmed: 2683673