PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 16422992

Priapism.

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: There are three different types of priapism: low-flow, ischemic, anoxic or veno-occlusive priapism; high-flow, arterial or nonischemic priapism; and recurrent or stuttering priapism. AIM: To provide recommendations/guidelines concerning state-of-the-art knowledge for the diagnosis and treatment of priapism. METHODS: An International Consultation in collaboration with the major urology and sexual medicine associations assembled over 200 multidisciplinary experts from 60 countries into 17 committees. Committee members established specific objectives and scopes for various male and female sexual medicine topics. The recommendations concerning state-of-the-art knowledge in the respective sexual medicine topic represent the opinion of experts from five continents developed in a process over a 2-year period. Concerning the Priapism Committee, there were 10 experts from six countries. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Expert opinion was based on grading of evidence-based medical literature, widespread internal committee discussion, public presentation and debate. RESULTS: Concerning ischemic priapism, persistent cavernous smooth muscle relaxation and failure of contraction is a compartment syndrome with increasing intracavernosal anoxia, rising pCO2 and acidosis. Urgent medical attention should be sought for an erection lasting >4 hours; 90% with priapism >24 hours develop complete erectile dysfunction. After diagnosis and counselling, intracavernosal aspiration and alpha-blockers should precede surgical shunting. Concerning high-flow priapism (congenital, traumatic or iatrogenic), intervention is not urgent and often unnecessary. Definitive management is by selective embolization with autologous blood clot. Concerning recurrent/stuttering priapism, the pathophysiology may be central or local (sickle cell disease). Management needs to be individualized; androgen deprivation has proved useful but has adverse effects. CONCLUSIONS: There is need for prospective, clinical trials to define safe and effective management strategies for patients with low-flow, high-flow or recurrent priapism.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

John Pryor, Emre Akkus, Gary Alter, Gerald Jordan, Thierry Lebret, Laurence Levine, John Mulhall, Sava Perovic, David Ralph, Walter Stackl. 2004. Priapism.. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2004.10117.x

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Reporting data on homeopathic treatments (RedHot): a supplement to CONSORT.

When homeopathy is tested in clinical trials, understanding and appraisal is likely to be improved if published reports contain details of prescribing strategies and treatments. An international Delphi panel was convened to develop consensus guidelines for reporting homeopathic methods and treatments. The panel agreed 28 treatment- and provider-specific items that supplement the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) Statement items 2, 3, 4 and 19. The authors recommend these for adoption by authors and journals when reporting trials of homeopathy.

Consensus↗

Agreement between Cochrane Neonatal Group reviews and clinical guidelines for newborns at a Copenhagen University Hospital - a cross-sectional study.

AIM: To assess the agreement between Cochrane Neonatal Group reviews and clinical guidelines of a University Neonatology Department, to evaluate the reasons for potential disagreements and to ascertain whether Cochrane reviews were considered for the guidelines development. METHODS: The recommendations in the reviews and guidelines were compared and classified as being in 'agreement', 'partial agreement' or 'disagreement'. The guideline authors were interviewed for reasons about disagreement and whether Cochrane reviews were considered during the guideline development. RESULTS: Agreement between reviews and guidelines was found for 133 interventions (77%), partial agreement for 31 interventions (18%) and disagreement for nine interventions (5%). Six interventions were recommended in the guidelines, but not in the reviews. Three interventions were recommended in the reviews, but not in the guidelines. Use of consensus statements, evidence on surrogate markers, observational studies, basic immunology and pathophysiological knowledge, expert opinion, economical constraints, reservations about the external validity and unawareness of reviews were reasons for disagreement. Cochrane reviews were rarely (22%) used during the guideline development. CONCLUSION: We found agreement between more than three quarters of Cochrane reviews and neonatal guidelines. However, few important disagreements occurred. Reviews were only used for guideline development in about a fifth of cases.

Consensus↗