Citation

Djordjevic ML, Bumbasirevic MZ, Krstic Z, Bizic MR, Stojanovic BZ, Miocinovic R, Santucci RA. Urology 2014; 83(2): 465-470.

Affiliation

Belgrade University, School of Medicine, Belgrade, Republic of Serbia. Electronic address: djordjevic@uromiros.com.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2014, Elsevier Publishing)

DOI

10.1016/j.urology.2013.10.015

PMID

24275276

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To review our experience with severe penile trauma, mechanism of injury, and their treatment modalities in 16 children younger than 18 years. Management of penile trauma poses diverse challenges to the reconstructive urologist, as injuries vary from abrasions to total emasculation. METHODS: Analysis of 16 patients with severe penile injuries referred to us between 2002 and 2011 was undertaken. The median age at surgery was 13 years (range, 5-17). Etiology of penile trauma and choice of treatment were evaluated. The management included a wide variety of surgical techniques that were tailored to the individual patient. Results were analyzed to define etiology, that is, mechanism of penile injury and to estimate modalities of surgical management and postoperative outcomes. Also, postoperative questionnaire was used, which included questions on functioning and esthetical appearance of participating patients and overall satisfaction. RESULTS: The causes of penile injury in these series were traffic accidents (2), iatrogenic trauma (5), self-amputation (1), electrocution (1), burns (3), dog bite (2), zipper injury (1), and mother's hair strangulation (1). The mean follow-up was 46 months (range, 14-122), and examinations were uneventful, except for 2 fistulae formation after neophallic urethral reconstruction. CONCLUSION: The main goal of reconstructive surgery is to have a penis with normal appearance and functions. Severe penile injuries should be treated on a case-by-case basis using the most propitious techniques.

Language: en