Rationale:
The recognition of calciphylaxis often eludes practitioners because of its multiple ambiguous presentations. It classically targets areas of the body dense with adipose tissue. A heightened suspicion for the disorder is therefore required in the case of penile calciphylaxis, given its unconventional location. The diagnosis of calciphylaxis is also challenging as the gold standard for diagnosis is biopsy which can often yield equivocal results. Unfortunately, in penile calciphylaxis, the utility of biopsies is further debated due to their potential to precipitate new lesions and their decreased sensitivity due to the limited depth of tissue that can be sampled. For these reasons, it is important that practitioners recognize other accessible and accurate investigative tools which can aid in their diagnosis.
Presenting concerns of the patient:
We present the case of a 49-year-old man who presented to the emergency room with penile pain in the context of known chronic kidney disease secondary to diabetic nephropathy. The pain had been present for about a week, was exquisitely tender, and was initially associated with a faint violaceous lesion. This gentleman had just recently initiated peritoneal dialysis and had no other lesions on his body.
Diagnosis:
His pain was determined by ultrasound and plain radiograph to be secondary to calciphylaxis after two biopsies were nondiagnostic.
Interventions:
The patient had already made changes to his diet to reduce phosphate and calcium intake, and had been on phosphate-lowering therapy with both calcium and phosphate being within their respective target range. Following his diagnosis, this patient was promptly converted from peritoneal dialysis to hemodialysis with sodium thiosulphate and initiated hyperbaric oxygen therapy. This patient continues to be followed by nephrology and urology specialists.