Peyronie's disease: Urologist's knowledge base and practice patterns

27Citations
Citations of this article
27Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Peyronie's disease (PD) is a poorly understood clinical entity. We performed an in-depth analysis of the knowledge base and current practice patterns of urologists in the United States. A 46-question instrument was created by two experienced PD practitioners and emailed to current American Urology Association members nationally. Questions were either multiple-choice or used a visual analogue scale. Responses regarding treatment options were answered by ranking a list of utilized therapies by preference. Data were aggregated and mean values for each category compiled. Responses were received from 639 urologists (67% in private practice). Almost all (98%) reported seeing PD patients with regularity. Twenty-six percent believed PD prevalence is ≤1%, a small fraction (5%) reporting prevalence as ≥10%. Only 3% referred patients to a subspecialist in PD. Twenty-six percent believed PD is a condition that does not warrant any treatment. The preferred initial management was with oral agents (81%). Of those who used intralesional injections as first line, verapamil was most commonly selected (67%). Seventy-nine percent perform surgery for PD with 86% reporting the optimal timing at ≥12 months after onset of symptoms. Seventy percent perform penile plication, most commonly the Nesbit technique (54%), 61% perform implant surgery and 37% reported performing plaque incision/excision and grafting. Although PD is now a more recognized condition, there are still large variances in knowledge and management strategies. Prospective clinical studies are needed to elucidate standardized management guidelines and a more cohesive strategy to manage this common disease.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Sullivan, J., Moskovic, D., Nelson, C., Levine, L., & Mulhall, J. (2015). Peyronie’s disease: Urologist’s knowledge base and practice patterns. Andrology, 3(2), 260–264. https://doi.org/10.1111/andr.292

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free