Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England · 2025
Systematic review of bilateral epididymal leiomyomas.
СтатьяСистематический обзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Pang K H, Walkden M, Haider A, Sangster P, Alnajjar H M, Muneer A, Lee W G
Аннотация
PURPOSE: Epididymal leiomyomas (LM) are rare benign tumours. Bilateral LM are even more uncommon and there are no management guidelines on LM. We performed a systematic review to update the number of epididymal LM cases reported, and to summarise how these tumours have been managed at different centres with a description of our own experience.
METHOD: The systematic review was performed according to the PRISMA guidelines. The PubMed database was searched for articles on epididymal LM. Data extracted included patients' age, presenting complaint, diagnostic tests, management and follow-up. In addition, a case from our own institution was presented.
RESULTS: The systematic search identified 120 articles of which 29 articles including 32 patients were analysed. There were 27 (84.4%) unilateral cases and 5 (15.6%) bilateral cases. Surgical treatments included lesion excision, n = 14 (43.8%); orchidectomy, n = 10 (31.3%); partial epididymectomy, n = 5 (15.6%); and total epididymectomy, n = 3 (9.4%). Final histology revealed 21 LM (65.6%) and 11 leiomyoadenomatoid tumours (34.4%). At a median (interquartile range) follow-up of 14 (8-12) months, there were no cases of recurrence. Our patient, a 53-year-old man, presented with bilateral epididymal lesions for over 1 year and underwent ultrasound scan and positron emission tomography imaging. The imaging findings were indeterminate, hence an excisional biopsy on one side was performed which revealed an epididymal LM. Because LM are benign, further surgery on the contralateral side was not performed.
CONCLUSION: Testis-sparing surgery appears to be feasible and safe, limiting the morbidity of radical orchidectomy. Because epididymal LM are rare, a multidisciplinary assessment and management are advised.
METHOD: The systematic review was performed according to the PRISMA guidelines. The PubMed database was searched for articles on epididymal LM. Data extracted included patients' age, presenting complaint, diagnostic tests, management and follow-up. In addition, a case from our own institution was presented.
RESULTS: The systematic search identified 120 articles of which 29 articles including 32 patients were analysed. There were 27 (84.4%) unilateral cases and 5 (15.6%) bilateral cases. Surgical treatments included lesion excision, n = 14 (43.8%); orchidectomy, n = 10 (31.3%); partial epididymectomy, n = 5 (15.6%); and total epididymectomy, n = 3 (9.4%). Final histology revealed 21 LM (65.6%) and 11 leiomyoadenomatoid tumours (34.4%). At a median (interquartile range) follow-up of 14 (8-12) months, there were no cases of recurrence. Our patient, a 53-year-old man, presented with bilateral epididymal lesions for over 1 year and underwent ultrasound scan and positron emission tomography imaging. The imaging findings were indeterminate, hence an excisional biopsy on one side was performed which revealed an epididymal LM. Because LM are benign, further surgery on the contralateral side was not performed.
CONCLUSION: Testis-sparing surgery appears to be feasible and safe, limiting the morbidity of radical orchidectomy. Because epididymal LM are rare, a multidisciplinary assessment and management are advised.