UCSF

Background

As perception of penile curvature varies widely, we sought to understand how adults perceive curvature and how these opinions compare with those of patients with curvature, specifically Peyronie's disease (PD).

Aim

To investigate the perspectives of curvature correction from adults with and without PD, as well as differences within demographics.

Methods

A cross-sectional survey was administered to adult patients and nonpatient companions in general urology clinics at 3 institutions across the United States. Men, women, and nonbinary participants were recruited. Patients were grouped as having PD vs andrology conditions without PD vs general urology conditions plus companions. The survey consisted of unlabeled 2-dimensional images of penis models with varying degrees of curvature. Participants selected images that they would want surgically corrected for themselves and their children. Univariable and multivariable analyses were performed to identify demographic variables associated with willingness to correct.

Outcomes

Our main outcome was to detect differences in threshold to correct curvature between those with and without PD.

Results

Participants were grouped as follows: PD (n = 141), andrology (n = 132), and general (n = 302) . Respectively, 12.8%, 18.9%, and 19.9% chose not to surgically correct any degree of curvature (P = .17). For those who chose surgical correction, the mean threshold for correction was 49.7°, 51.0°, and 51.0° (P = .48); for their children, the decision not to correct any degree of curvature was 21.3%, 25.4%, and 29.3% (P = .34), which was significantly higher than correction for themselves (P < .001). The mean threshold for their children's correction was 47.7°, 53.3°, and 49.4° for the PD, andrology, and general groups (P = .53), with thresholds no different vs themselves (P = .93). On multivariable analysis, no differences were seen in demographics within the PD and andrology groups. In the general group, participants aged 45 to 54 years and those who identified as LGBTQ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer) had a higher threshold for correction as compared with their counterparts when factoring other demographic variables (63.2° vs 48.8°, P = .001; 62.1° vs 50.4°, P = .05).

Clinical implications

With changing times and viewpoints, this study stresses the importance of shared decision making and balancing risks and benefits to correction of penile curvature.

Strengths and limitations

Strengths include the broad population surveyed. Limitations include the use of artificial models.

Conclusion

No significant differences were seen in the decision to surgically correct curvature between participants with and without PD, with participants being less likely to choose surgical correction for their children.