Do you think an ultrasound without injection can really evaluate for Peyronie's/scarring/fibrosis? Is it true that ultrasounds are operator dependent, and different machines might be better than others?
Because I had a new flaccid ultrasound come back clean, which doesn't make any sense considering every other ultrasound I've had has shown fibrosis, and I keep getting worse. I asked the doctor, and he had no explanation. I had told him about my sensitivity to injections, so he opted for a flaccid ultrasound.
If I don't have much of a curve and no palpable plaque, would an MRI be a better diagnostic tool for corporal fibrosis?
Ultrasounds are of no use in Peyronie's disease; just to waste time and money. It is my opinion based on my experience.
There is a study called "elastography", it is also used for Peyronie's but I don't know about this. I also don't see the point of doing studies if there is no effective treatment afterwards.
I asked this question to Dr. Trost here on forum, in general important things are usually detectable by ultrasound. However it can happen that ultrasound does not clearly show some plaques (I also read about this in some other posts). The opposite also can happen, some artifacts might be overread due to used device params (device is set with "too much sensitivity").
Please note that penis is not most frequent subject of ultrasound examination (comparing to kidneys etc.) , therefore radiologists or even urologists might not know how to detect fibrosis. Therefore the doctor who does ultrasound need to be true Peyronie specialist, so he knows what to look for. Otherwise it's waste of money in my opinion.
https://www.peyroniesforum.net/index.php/topic,18833.msg158547.html#msg158547
You can check also following questions to Dr. Trost, waiting for response:
https://www.peyroniesforum.net/index.php/topic,20055.msg165949.html#msg165949