Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2013 Feb 6.
Published in final edited form as: J Urol. 2010 Feb 20;183(4):1484–1488. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2009.12.026

Table 1.

Demographic, Peyronie’s specific characteristics and ultrasound findings during initial visit of study participants

No. Observation (%) No. Surgery (%) p Value
Age:
 Younger than 40 71 (18.3) 8 (6.2)
 40–49 50 (12.9) 17 (13.1)
 50–59 152 (39.2) 58 (44.6)
 60–69 98 (25.3) 42 (32.3)
 70+ 17 (4.4) 5 (3.9) 0.02
Married 226 (58.3) 80 (61.5) 0.51
Yrs of PD:
 Less than 1 157 (42.2) 34 (27.2)
 1–2 101 (27.2) 39 (31.2)
 2 or Greater 114 (30.7) 52 (41.6) 0.01
Curvature (degrees):
 Less than 30 68 (17.5) 11 (8.5)
 30–59 104 (26.8) 39 (30)
 60+ 49 (12.6) 47 (36.2)
 Unknown 167 (43.0) 33 (25.4) <0.001
Prior treatment 289 (74.5) 108 (83.1) 0.05
Current treatment 353 (93.1) 82 (63.6) <0.001
Previous penile injury 85 (32.7) 23 (26.1) 0.25
Able to have intercourse 256 (79.3) 74 (67.9) 0.02
Maintain erections 109 (50.9) 42 (55.3) 0.52
Loss of penile length 165 (42.5) 57 (43.9) 0.79
Current penile pain 85 (41.3) 38 (45.2) 0.53
Difficulty with penetration 148 (38.1) 70 (53.9) 0.002
Penile deformity 149 (40) 55 (43.7) 0.47
Ultrasound findings:
 Septal fibrosis 79 (20.4) 23 (17.7) 0.51
 Intracavernous fibrosis 61 (15.7) 16 (12.3) 0.34
 Tunical thickening 190 (49) 71 (54.6) 0.27
 Calcification 107 (27.9) 52 (40) 0.01