Journal of pediatric urology · 2010
Surgical treatment of penile duplication.
Клинический случайСтатьяНазвание 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.
de Oliveira Manuel Castanheira, Ramires Ricardo, Soares José, Carvalho António Pedro, Marcelo Filinto
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Penile duplication is a rare anomaly with an incidence of 1 in 5,500,000. It is normally associated with other malformations, such as double bladder, presence of the cloaca, imperforate anus, duplication of the rectosigmoid and vertebral deformities. Presented here is the surgical technique used to resolve a rare case of complete penile duplication in a 5-year-old child, without any other malformation.
PATIENT AND METHODS: A male Caucasian patient presented with a rare diagnosis of complete penile duplication, without any associated systemic malformation. At 5 years of age, he was successfully submitted to surgical treatment. The procedure included the following steps: penile dissection up to the point of ischial-pubic insertion; dissection of the hypoplastic urethra; amputation of the less developed penis; termino-lateral urethral anastomosis and phalloplasty.
RESULTS: Three years after surgery, penile morphology was normal, with a normal urinary flow according to age.
CONCLUSIONS: Treatment should always be individualized. The malformations that are potentially life-threatening should be solved first. Fortunately, this patient had only penile duplication, successfully corrected after surgical treatment.
PATIENT AND METHODS: A male Caucasian patient presented with a rare diagnosis of complete penile duplication, without any associated systemic malformation. At 5 years of age, he was successfully submitted to surgical treatment. The procedure included the following steps: penile dissection up to the point of ischial-pubic insertion; dissection of the hypoplastic urethra; amputation of the less developed penis; termino-lateral urethral anastomosis and phalloplasty.
RESULTS: Three years after surgery, penile morphology was normal, with a normal urinary flow according to age.
CONCLUSIONS: Treatment should always be individualized. The malformations that are potentially life-threatening should be solved first. Fortunately, this patient had only penile duplication, successfully corrected after surgical treatment.