Characterization of urethral diverticula in males.
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION
Urethral diverticulum in a male is a rare entity and the literature is limited to case reports and small case series. The aim of our study is to characterize this disease in patients from three Mayo Clinic locations.
MATERIALS AND
METHODS
Chart analysis was performed of patients across all three Mayo Clinic sites that had International Classification of Diseases (ICD) codes corresponding to urethral diverticulum or urethral diverticulectomy via CPT code. Data were available for patients that were seen from 6/1/2003 through 10/5/2018. Patients were classified by age, etiology, presenting symptomatology, location, treatment, pathology, and postoperative outcomes.
RESULTS
A total of 87 men met the initial search criteria with 52 having documented urethral diverticula. The most common presenting complaint in these men was incontinence (37%). The majority of diverticula (83%) were within the anterior urethra. The most common diagnostic modalities were retrograde urethrogram (46%) and cystoscopy (50%). Most diverticula were iatrogenic (77%). Of the men that were diagnosed, 42% went on to have diverticulectomy. Median follow up was 1.5 years. Eighteen percent of patients had persistent urinary symptoms following diverticulectomy with incontinence being the most common finding. Postoperative complications were experienced by 26% patients with the most prevalent complication being urethrocutaneous fistula. The patients who did not undergo diverticulectomy either had other surgical procedure to manage their coexisting conditions or were managed medically.
CONCLUSION
Urethral diverticulum in males is a rare yet important entity that requires special consideration, especially in those who have had prior surgery within the lower urinary tract.
Предметные рубрики MeSH
Подготовка и перевод публикации
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
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.
Тип публикации указан по данным источника. Уровень доказательности автоматически не присваивается.