4.3 Article

Prevalence and risk factors for penile lesions/anomalies in a cohort of Brazilian men ≥ 40 years of age

期刊

INTERNATIONAL BRAZ J UROL
卷 39, 期 1, 页码 55-62

出版社

BRAZILIAN SOC UROL
DOI: 10.1590/S1677-5538.IBJU.2013.01.08

关键词

Epidemiology; etiology; Prevalence; Penile diseases

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: To report the prevalence and risk factors of penile lesions/anomalies in a Metropolitan Brazilian city. Materials and Methods: All participants undergoing prostate cancer screening in the city of Curitiba were systematically examined to identify penile lesions including cutaneous mycosis, sexually transmitted diseases, penile cancer, meatal stenosis, hypospadias, and Peyronie's disease. Outcomes of interest included the prevalence and the relative risk and 95% confidence intervals of the lesions/anomalies according to age, school level, race, personal history of diabetes, arterial hypertension, nonspecific urethritis, and vasectomy. Results: Balanoposthitis occurred in 11.8% of all participants, with an increased risk in those with diabetes (RR = 1.73), or past history of nonspecific urethritis (RR = 1.58); tinea of the penis was present in 0.2%; condyloma acuminata in 0.5%; herpes virus infection in 0.4%; urethral discharge in 0.2%; genital vitiligo in 0.7%, with an increased prevalence in non-white men (RR = 4.43), and in subjects with lower school level (RR = 7.24); phimosis in 0.5%, with a nearly 7-fold increased risk in diabetics; lichen sclerosus in 0.3%; stenosis of the external urethral meatus in 0.7%, with a higher prevalence in subjects with lichen sclerosus (RR = 214.9), and in those older than 60 years of age (RR = 3.57); hypospadia in 0.6%; fibrosis suggestive of Peyronie's disease in 0.9%, especially in men older than 60 years (RR = 4.59) and with diabetes (RR = 3.91); and penile cancer in 0.06%. Conclusion: We estimated the prevalence and risk factors of commonly seen penile diseases in an adult cohort of Brazilian men.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据