Objective: Penile fracture and “false penile fracture” are two emergent cases with similar clinical features. The differential diagnosis is important to avoid unnecessary surgery. In this study, we focused on understanding to distinguish between penile fracture and “false penile fracture”.
Methods: We retrospectively examined the clinicopathological features of 27 patients with a diagnosis of penile fracture and “false penile fracture” between June 2012 and June 2015.
Results: Twenty-two patients were diagnosed with penile fracture with 20 out of 22 patients undergoing surgical treatment with no complications. Conservative treatment was applied to two patients, however one patient developed erectile dysfunction. Five patients were diagnosed with “false penile fracture”. Two patients underwent surgical treatment and three patients underwent conservative treatment. There were no complications in the five patients.
Conclusion: We suggest that surgical treatment is needed for the treatment of penile fracture. However, there is no need to surgical exploration for treatment of “false penile fracture”. Conservative treatment is sufficient for “false penile fracture”.