ArticleThe British journal of radiology2024
Imaging findings in suspected penile fracture: alternative diagnoses and surgical correlation.
Article in The British journal of radiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- A sonographic pitfall in penile fracture: Spongiosal displacement mimicking urethral injury, with surgical correlation.Radiology case reports · 2026Article
- Penile trauma management in absence of fracture: Long-term outcomes.BJUI compass · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
18 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe primary objective is to compare the imaging and surgical findings in a cohort of patients with suspected penile fracture (PF).
methodsRetrospective cohort study of all patients with suspected PF over an 11-year period at a tertiary referral andrology centre. All dedicated presurgical imaging with ultrasound (US) and MRI was analysed and correlated with intraoperative findings; alternative diagnoses were recorded.
resultsOne hundred and ninety-three patients were included. One hundred and four (54%) had alternative diagnoses to PF including dorsal vein rupture and haematoma. Ninety-nine (51%) underwent surgical exploration of which 89 (46%) had PF. US correctly confirmed the presence and marked the site of fracture in 92% of cases. MRI was primarily used as a problem-solving tool (13 cases) and demonstrated a more extensive injury than US (12 cases). The reported size of tunical defect on imaging was a median of 7 mm (IQR 4-10) significantly smaller than on exploration (median 20 mm, IQR 10-30; P < .0001).
conclusionsUS has a high positive predictive value in the confirmation of PF. MRI improves the detection and characterizing the extent of injury. Imaging marking informs surgical incision but defect size is under appreciated on all imaging modalities. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: Penile imaging has a high positive predictive value to not only confirm the diagnosis of PF but to stage the extent of injury and mark the skin, which impacts the surgical technique. Alternative diagnoses to fracture are common and imaging could prevent unnecessary surgical exploration.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.