Evaluation and Treatment of Peyronie’s Disease

  • Lawrence S. HakimEmail author
Part of the Current Clinical Urology book series (CCU)


Peyronie’s disease is a common potency-threatening condition of male sexual dysfunction, occurring in 3–8% of men. While typically thought to be a result of injury during sexual activity, the underlying cause of Peyronie’s disease can vary and is not known in every situation. Clinical presentation may include a curved or bent penis, a palpable penile scar or plaque, complaints of decreased penile length, diminished penile stretch, less rigidity, penile numbness, and erectile dysfunction. Numerous advances have been made in understanding the mechanisms involving Peyronie’s disease, while improved diagnostic techniques, including penile duplex Doppler ultrasonography, and advanced therapeutic interventions, including intralesional therapy, surgical grafting techniques, and advanced prosthetics have allowed for the successful treatment of this significant medical problem. This chapter reviews the contemporary state of knowledge of Peyronie’s disease, focusing on the role of diagnostics, therapeutic alternatives and offers an algorithmic approach for the management of this disorder.


Erectile Dysfunction Erectile Function Penile Length Penile Curvature Inflatable Penile Prosthesis 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    Serefoglu EC, Hellstrom WJ. Treatment of Peyronie’s disease: 2012 update. Curr Urol Rep. 2011;12(6):444–52. Accessed 5 Aug 2011.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Nugteren HM, Nijman JM, de Jong IJ, van Driel MF. The association between Peyronie’s and Dupuytren’s disease. Int J Impot Res. 2011;23(4):142–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Casabé A, Bechara A, Cheliz G, De Bonis W, Rey H. Risk factors of Peyronie’s disease. What does our clinical experience show? J Sex Med. 2011;8(2):518–23.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Faix A, Lapray JF, Callede O, Maubon A, Lanfrey K. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of sexual intercourse: second experience in missionary position and initial experience in posterior position. J Sex Marital Ther. 2002;28 Suppl 1:63–76.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hellstrom WJ, Bivalacqua TJ. Peyronie’s disease: etiology, medical, and surgical therapy. J Androl. 2000; 21(3):347–54.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hakim LS, Platt M. The couple’s disease: finding a cure for your ‘lost’ love life. NY: DHP Publishers; 2002.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mulhall JP, Alex B, Choi JM. Predicting delay in presentation in men with Peyronie’s disease. J Sex Med. 2010;7(6):2226–30.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Smith JF, Brant WO, Fradet V, Shindel AW, et al. Penile sonographic and clinical characteristics in men with Peyronie’s disease. J Sex Med. 2009;6(10): 2858–67.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Smith JF, Walsh TJ, Conti SL, Turek P, Lue T. Risk factors for emotional and relationship problems in Peyronie’s disease. J Sex Med. 2008;5(9):2179–84.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ralph D, Gonzalez-Cadavid N, Mirone V, Perovic S, Sohn M, Usta M, Levine L. The management of Peyronie’s disease: evidence-based 2010 guidelines. J Sex Med. 2010;7(7):2359–74.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gur S, Limin M, Hellstrom WJ. Current status and new developments in Peyronie’s disease: medical, minimally invasive and surgical treatment options. Expert Opin Pharmacother. 2011;12(6):931–44.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Safarinejad MR, Asgari MA, Hosseini SY, Dadkhah F. A double-blind placebo-controlled study of the efficacy and safety of pentoxifylline in early chronic Peyronie’s disease. BJU Int. 2010;106(2):240–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gonzalez-Cadavid NF, Rajfer J. Treatment of Peyronie’s disease with PDE5 inhibitors: an antifibrotic strategy. Nat Rev Urol. 2010;7(4): 215–21.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Chung E, Deyoung L, Brock GB. The role of PDE5 inhibitors in penile septal scar remodeling: assessment of clinical and radiological outcomes. J Sex Med. 2011;8(5):1472–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Cavallini G, Biagiotti G, Lo Giudice C. Association between Peyronie’s disease and low serum testosterone levels: detection and therapeutic considerations. J Androl. 2011. Accessed 5 Aug 2011.
  16. 16.
    Greenfield JM, Shah SJ, Levine LA. Verapamil versus saline in electromotive drug administration for Peyronie’s disease: a double-blind, placebo controlled trial. J Urol. 2007;177(3):972–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hellstrom WJ, Kendirci M, Matern R, Cockerham Y, et al. Single-blind, multicenter, placebo controlled, parallel study to assess the safety and efficacy of intralesional interferon alpha-2B for minimally invasive treatment for Peyronie’s disease. J Urol. 2006;176(1):394–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kendirci M, Usta MF, Matern RV, Nowfar S, et al. The impact of intralesional interferon alpha-2b injection therapy on penile hemodynamics in men with Peyronie’s disease. J Sex Med. 2005;2(5):709–15.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Vardi Y, Levine LA, Chen J, Hatzimouratidis K, Sohn M. Is there a place for conservative treatment in Peyronie’s disease? J Sex Med. 2009;6(4):903–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    De Berardinis E, Busetto GM, Antonini G, Giovannone R, Gentile V. Extracorporeal shock wave therapy in the treatment of Peyronie’s disease: long-term results. Arch Ital Urol Androl. 2010;82(2):128–33.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Chitale S, Morsey M, Swift L, Sethia K. Limited shock wave therapy vs. sham treatment in men with Peyronie’s disease: results of a prospective randomized controlled double-blind trial. BJU Int. 2010;106(9):1352–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Rahim AA, Giraffe G, Rahim TA, Dixon M, et al. The role of vacuum pump therapy to mechanically straighten the penis in Peyronie’s disease. BJU Int. 2010;106(8):1178–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Levine LA, Newell M, Taylor FL. Penile traction therapy for treatment of Peyronie’s disease: a single-center pilot study. J Sex Med. 2008;5(6):1468–73.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Mulhall J, Anderson M, Parker M. A surgical algorithm for men with combined Peyronie’s disease and erectile dysfunction: functional and satisfaction outcomes. J Sex Med. 2005;2(1):132–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Richardson B, Pinsk MR, Hellstrom WJ. Incision and grafting for severe Peyronie’s disease. J Sex Med. 2009;6(8):2084–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Lentz AC, Carson 3rd CC. Peyronie’s surgery: graft choices and outcomes. Curr Urol Rep. 2009;10(6): 460–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Chung E, Clendenin E, Lesser L, Brock G. Five-year follow-up of Peyronie’s graft surgery: outcomes and patient satisfaction. J Sex Med. 2011;8(2):594–600.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Levine LA, Demetrious RJ. A surgical algorithm for penile prosthesis placement in men with erectile failure and Peyronie’s disease. Int J Impot Res. 2000; 12(3):147–51.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Levine LA, Benso J, Hoover C. Inflatable penile prosthesis placement in men with Peyronie’s disease and drug-resistant erectile dysfunction: a single-center study. J Sex Med. 2010;7(11):3775–83.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of UrologyCleveland Clinic FloridaWestonUSA

Personalised recommendations