Main Article Content
Objective: To present the underlying etiological factors in patients referring with priapism, sharing how they are managed according to etiology and priapism type together with our experiences, creating awareness so that urologists and emergency physicians may play a more active role together in priapism management. Materials and methods: Patients referring to emergency service with priapism were examined. Penile Doppler ultrasonography (PDU) and/or corporeal aspiration and blood gas analysis were made in order to determine priapism type after anamnesis and physical examination. The most appropriate treatment option was chosen and applied on the patients considering priapism type, underlying etiological factors and priapism time. Presence of a statistical difference between etiological factors causing priapism, priapism type and applied treatment methods was calculated using Chi square (χ2) test. Results: A total of 51 patients referring to emergency service with priapism attacks for 53 times were included in the evaluation. When compared to other etiological factors, number of priapism cases developing secondary to papaverine after PDU was found statistically significantly high (p < 0.001). Ischemic priapism ratio was detected statistically higher compared to other groups (p < 0.001). Aspiration and/or irrigation treatment were the most common method used for treatment at a statistically significant level (p < 0.001). All patients (100%) were hospitalized in urology service without applying any treatment in emergency service and had treatment and intervention under the control of the urologist. Conclusions: Application of non-invasive treatments in suitable priapism patients would protect patients from invasive painful interventions. We believe that emergency physicians should be more effective in priapism phase management and at least noninvasive treatment phase.
Downloads month by month
Download data is not yet available.