Keywords
Penile necrosis, Calciphylaxis, Nephropathy
Penile necrosis, Calciphylaxis, Nephropathy
Calciphylaxis is the process of calcification in small and medium vessels, resulting in necrosis in distal regions of the body such as the lower extremities and the penis, the latter being very infrequent1. This condition may present in patients with diabetes mellitus and/or chronic kidney disease (CKD). It has an incidence of 1–4% in patients with CKD that receive hemodialysis2. Due to the technical advances in hemodialysis and the large number of patients that receive this treatment for long periods of time, the number of cases and risk of calciphylaxis has grown3. Calcific uremic arteriolopathy (CUA), also known as calciphylaxis, is a rare complication of CKD where there is occlusion of microvasculature with mural calcification of the arterioles, causing severe ischemia and necrosis of the tissue4. CUA is a major complication of CKD, which demands timely diagnosis. It carries a high risk of mortality and various complications4.
It is possible to develop ischemic disorders due to arterial calcifications produced by hypercalcemia, as a result of the hyperparathyroidism secondary to CKD5. There are different therapeutic options, but treatment is still controversial. There are no well-established treatment protocols for penile calciphylaxis, and most regimens have been shown to have modest success at best. Treatment options include local wound care, partial or total penectomy, parathyroidectomy, sodium thiosulfate and revascularization6,7.
On the other hand, paraphimosis occurs when the foreskin of the penis is retracted over the glans and cannot be replaced in its normal position. The tight ring of preputial skin constricts the distal penis causing vascular occlusion and, if not dealt with quickly, can lead to tissue necrosis and partial amputation8. Complications are time related most commonly due to misdiagnosis8. There are few publications related to this uncommon complication.
We report a case of a patient with end stage renal disease (ESRD) that developed calciphylaxis and consequently distal necrosis of the penis and was treated with an amputation, which resulted in a favorable outcome.
A 53-year-old, Mestizo patient that works as an accounting assistant was admitted to our hospital in emergency room. The patient had a prior medical history of arterial hypertension, diabetes mellitus type 2 and ESRD, for which the patient had been undergoing hemodialysis for two years prior to the initial consultation. No prior history of any surgical intervention was indicated. The patient presented to the emergency ward with an ulcerative and painful lesion in the glans, which had been present for two weeks.
A physical examination revealed foul-smelling distal necrosis of the penis and paraphimosis (Figure 1) with non-palpable inguinal nodes. No other relevant physical findings were described. The laboratory examination showed elevated creatinine (6.36 mg/dL), urea (114 mg/dL), glucose (119 mg/dL), elevated potassium (5.06 mmol/L), C-reactive protein (8.23 mg/dL) and seric calcium (10.1 mg /dl). On the other hand, hemoglobin (7.9 mg/dL), sodium (134 mmol/L) and albumin (2.9 g/dL) levels were found to be below the normal range. No other significant abnormalities were noted. Doppler ultrasound scans showed fluid collection in the left cavernous body, parietal vascular calcifications and vascular insufficiency in both cavernous bodies, suggestive of penile necrosis. The pathology report confirmed the diagnosis of ischemic penile necrosis due to systemic calciphylaxis.
The patient was treated with a standard circumcision and resection of the scar in the emergency operating room. Inflammatory tissue was evident but wound dehiscence was not observed in the postoperative period. Subsequently, he received 30 sessions in the hyperbaric oxygen chamber over four weeks. The treatment was carried out at 2.8 absolute atmospheres for a duration of two hours. Broad antibiotic therapy was used in order to reduce the progression of the necrosis (a corrected dose for patients on hemodialysis of 250g Imipenem three times a day) for two weeks. Despite the treatment, the clinical response was not a favorable; we identified by physical examination that the necrotic lesion continued, and the general state of the patient began to worsen. Therefore, in order to avoid a worsening in the infection it was decided that a partial amputation of the penis with preservation of 4cm of penile length would be performed, which had a good outcome, evidencing clinical improvement and a decrease in C-reactive protein (Figure 2).
After three years of follow-up, the patient did not present with urinary symptoms or pain. The patient can void spontaneously. A timeline of the patient’s medical history, interventions and follow-up is shown in Figure 3.
Penile necrosis in patients with ESRD due to calciphylaxis is infrequent9. In ESRD, the origin of the calciphylaxis is related to secondary hyperparathyroidism, as a result of chronic hyperphosphatemia10. Calciphylaxis results in the total obstruction of the arterial lumen due to arterial wall calcification, producing acute ischemia and necrosis of the affected tissue3. In our case, the arterial irrigation of the penis was affected, producing distal necrosis, an unusual event that is usually avoided due to abundant irrigation and collateral circulation. It represents a poor prognostic sign in ESRD patients and is an indicator of metastatic vascular calcification. Pathogenesis of this life-threatening condition is not clearly understood, and treatment is also controversial11.
The absence of follow-up and treatment with calcitriol for the control of calcium metabolism prior to diagnosis, adding to the absence of treatment for secondary hyperparathyroidism and subsequent calciphylaxis, were the main limitations in this case. However, the post-treatment follow-up and the histological confirmation of the calciphylaxis were important strengths that allowed us to confirm that following the guidelines in previous reports, which recommend starting with the conservative management and following with surgical treatment, were effective and safe with a satisfactory conclusion, despite the high mortality reported for this group of patients.
Penile necrosis produced by calciphylaxis is presented more frequently in patients between 40 and 60 years old. It is associated with ESRD and diabetes mellitus in 100% and 76% of cases respectively, of which our patient had both of risk factors3. Other risk factors obesity, arterial hypertension, use of corticoids, use of inhibitors of vascular calcification and oral anticoagulants3. Our patient had a history of arterial hypertension.
The image studies to perform include doppler ultrasound of the penis, computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)12. It is suggested that doppler ultrasound is performed as the first line image study to evaluate vascular permeability and blood flow of the penile vessels. CT could be performed secondarily to evaluate with more sensitivity the extension of the vascular calcification into the soft tissues, necrotizing infection of soft tissues and/or ischemia with the presence of air12. MRI scans can identify with more specificity the necrotic borders of the affected tissues12. In our case, we could only perform a doppler ultrasound within the clinical context of the patient. The rest of the image studies could not be performed as it was necessary to rapidly initiate the required treatment.
For the management of penile necrosis there are different therapeutic options, from conservative management to surgical intervention, according to the necessity of the case. Nevertheless, it has a poor prognosis and management is controversial9,12. In addition to therapy for penile necrosis, it is recommended to initiate treatment for secondary hyperparathyroidism, in order to reduce long term mortality6,13. In patients undergoing hemodialysis with hyperphosphatemia, it is recommended to use phosphate blockers that do not contain calcium, and in patients with elevated levels of parathormone (PTH), it is recommended to use cinacalcet11. Additionally, studies have reported that necrotic tissue can become a culture medium for multiple microorganisms, so the use of broad-spectrum antibiotics is recommended as a prophylactic measure and empirical therapy11. Empirical antibiotic therapy was used for this patient, as well as surgical treatment, due to the poor response to conservative measures. Treatment for hyperphosphatemia could not be initiated because of the unavailability of the drugs. Karpman et al. demonstrated in a case series of 34 patients that survival rate after partial penile amputation and thyroidectomy was superior to partial amputation by itself, with rates of 75% and 28% respectively. The overall mortality was 64%, with a mean time of 2.5 months until death6.
The patient had a favorable recovery after partial penectomy without recurrence of necrosis, despite the failure of the first therapeutic line, even though it has been reported that an increase of vascular flow can improve oxygen transport to the ischemic site11,12.
Penile necrosis constitutes a rare but serious complication associated with ESRD.
Rapid and timely management of paraphimosis could improve outcomes in patients with multiple co-morbidities.
For a good clinical outcome, it is necessary to have a high clinical suspicion and to have knowledge of the different elements involved in clinical support.
A multidisciplinary approach is necessary in the management of this complication.
All data underlying the results are available as part of the article and no additional source data are required.
Written informed consent for publication of their clinical details and clinical images were obtained from the patient.
Views | Downloads | |
---|---|---|
F1000Research | - | - |
PubMed Central
Data from PMC are received and updated monthly.
|
- | - |
Is the background of the case’s history and progression described in sufficient detail?
Yes
Are enough details provided of any physical examination and diagnostic tests, treatment given and outcomes?
Yes
Is sufficient discussion included of the importance of the findings and their relevance to future understanding of disease processes, diagnosis or treatment?
Yes
Is the case presented with sufficient detail to be useful for other practitioners?
Yes
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.
Reviewer Expertise: Chronic Kidney Disease, Calciphylaxis.
Is the background of the case’s history and progression described in sufficient detail?
Yes
Are enough details provided of any physical examination and diagnostic tests, treatment given and outcomes?
Partly
Is sufficient discussion included of the importance of the findings and their relevance to future understanding of disease processes, diagnosis or treatment?
Partly
Is the case presented with sufficient detail to be useful for other practitioners?
Yes
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.
Reviewer Expertise: Renal lithiasis and pathological calcifications
Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article:
Invited Reviewers | ||
---|---|---|
1 | 2 | |
Version 1 19 Jul 19 |
read | read |
Provide sufficient details of any financial or non-financial competing interests to enable users to assess whether your comments might lead a reasonable person to question your impartiality. Consider the following examples, but note that this is not an exhaustive list:
Sign up for content alerts and receive a weekly or monthly email with all newly published articles
Already registered? Sign in
The email address should be the one you originally registered with F1000.
You registered with F1000 via Google, so we cannot reset your password.
To sign in, please click here.
If you still need help with your Google account password, please click here.
You registered with F1000 via Facebook, so we cannot reset your password.
To sign in, please click here.
If you still need help with your Facebook account password, please click here.
If your email address is registered with us, we will email you instructions to reset your password.
If you think you should have received this email but it has not arrived, please check your spam filters and/or contact for further assistance.
Comments on this article Comments (0)