Chronic Penile Pain: A Poorly Researched and Managed Life-Debilitating Condition.

Chronic penile pain is a complex clinical entity with limited diagnostic criteria and treatment options. Due to limited reporting of these cases, there are no clear clinical treatments and indications for when these patients present to the clinic. This case report will highlight the diagnostic challenges encountered and the subsequent management strategies employed while working up a patient with penile pain. We present a 37-year-old male with a six-year history of debilitating penile pain, urinary frequency, and urgency that is exacerbated by sexual arousal and touch. Initial evaluations attributed the symptoms to medication side effects, leading to medication changes. Despite multiple treatments, including gabapentin, solifenacin, vibegron, and a variety of specialist consultations, the patient's condition persisted. Neurological evaluation revealed pudendal neuropathy. Medical management with pudendal nerve blocks and gabapentin did not provide lasting relief, so surgical interventions were considered. Subsequent treatment with an InterStim II device (Medtronic Inc., Minneapolis, MN) initially resulted in significant symptom improvement. Unfortunately, at the seven-month follow-up, his pain returned. Further evaluation and additional treatment options are currently under consideration. This case report highlights the diagnostic complexity and limited treatment options for chronic penile pain. It suggests that sacral neuromodulation, although lacking long-term data, may offer temporary relief in cases refractory to medical therapy. Further research is needed to enhance our understanding and management of this challenging condition.

Continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (insulin pump) therapy can be safely used in the hospital in select patients.

OBJECTIVE: To analyze data on inpatient insulin pump use and examine staff compliance with hospital procedures, glycemic control, and safety. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective review of charts and bedside glucose data for patients who had been receiving outpatient insulin pump therapy and were admitted to our teaching hospital between November 1, 2005, and February 8, 2008. RESULTS: During the study period, there were 50 hospitalizations involving 35 patients who had been receiving outpatient insulin pump therapy. The mean age and duration of diabetes of the 35 patients was 55 years and 32 years, respectively. Sixty-six percent were women, and 91% had type 1 diabetes. Patients in 31 of the hospitalizations (62%) were deemed candidates for continued insulin pump therapy during their stay. Of the 31 hospitalizations, 80% had the presence of the pump documented at admission; 100% had an admission glucose value; 77% had documentation of signed patient consent; 81% had evidence of completed preprinted insulin pump orders; 77% received an endocrine consultation; and 68% had a completed bedside flow sheet. Patients continuing insulin pump therapy had mean bedside glucose levels similar to those whose pump therapy was discontinued (P = .11); however, the proportion of hypoglycemic events was lower among insulin pump users (P<.01) than among nonusers. CONCLUSIONS: Insulin pump therapy is safe for select inpatients. Overall, staff compliance with procedures was high, although we identified areas for improvement. Continued study is needed on the effectiveness of insulin pump therapy in controlling inpatient hyperglycemia.

Temporal and geographic patterns of hypoglycemia among hospitalized patients with diabetes mellitus.

BACKGROUND: Hypoglycemia is often cited as a barrier to achieving inpatient glycemic targets. We sought to characterize hypoglycemic events in our institution by work-shift cycle and by specific treatment area. METHODS: Capillary (bedside) and blood (laboratory) glucose values of <70 mg/dl for patients with either a known diagnosis of diabetes or with evidence of hyperglycemia were abstracted from our laboratory database for hospitalizations between October 1, 2007, and February 3, 2008. Hypoglycemic events were analyzed by 12 h nursing work-shift cycles (day shift, 07:00 to 18:59; night shift, 19:00 to 06:59) and by the six medical, surgical, and intensive care areas in the hospital (designated areas 1 to 6). RESULTS: We identified 206 individual patients with either diabetes or hyperglycemia (mean age, 67 years; 56% men; 83% white) who had 423 hypoglycemic events. There were 78% more hypoglycemic events during the night shift (n = 271 events in 128 individual patients) than during the day shift (n = 152 events in 96 individual patients). Most of the night-shift hypoglycemic measurements were detected between 04:00 and 04:59 or 06:00 and 06:59. The mean hypoglycemic level was comparable between shifts (p = .79) and across the six inpatient areas. The number of hypoglycemic events per person increased with lengths of hospital stay >5 days. The prevalence of hypoglycemia varied across patient care areas within the hospital, with most (28%) detected in one area of the hospital. CONCLUSION: There are temporal and geographic patterns in the occurrence of hypoglycemia among patients with diabetes or hyperglycemia in our hospital. Further study should focus on the reasons underlying these variations so that specific interventions can address the risk of hypoglycemia during peak times and places.