Therapeutic advances in urology · 2015
The double urethra: revisiting the surgical classification.
СтатьяНазвание 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.
AbouZeid Amr AbdelHamid, Safoury Hesham Soilman, Mohammad Shaimaa AbdelSattar, El-Naggar Osama, Zaki Ahmed Medhat, Hassan Tarek Ahmed, Hay Sameh Abdel
Аннотация
AIM: The aim of this article was to describe our experience with 14 patients with double urethra.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively examined the patients' records including their clinical presentations, investigations, operative findings, and outcome. In addition to Effmann's classification, we used a newly proposed classification that depends on the orientation of the double urethral channels.
RESULTS: During the last 15 years, 18 patients were diagnosed to have double urethra at our pediatric surgical unit. We excluded four patients with 'Y-type' urethral duplication. The remaining 14 patients were divided into either sagittal or collateral duplication. Their age at presentation ranged from the neonatal period to 9 years. The sagittal urethral duplication included 12 male patients. All patients had two urethral channels, one above the other. The dorsal urethral channel was always characterized by poor function and ectopic course. The ventral channel was always the more functioning urethra, with a normal course from the urinary bladder to end either at an orthotopic meatus (subgroup A), or more proximally in a hypospadiac location (subgroup B). The collateral urethral duplication included two patients. Both patients were associated with duplication of the urinary bladder and the external genitalia as a part of caudal duplication syndrome. In this group, both urethrae had comparable function, lying side by side, and each draining a separate urinary bladder.
CONCLUSION: The double urethra is a diverse spectrum comprising different pathologies. Our proposed classification system of duplicated urethras is clinically relevant as it guides surgical management and allows prognostication of outcome.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively examined the patients' records including their clinical presentations, investigations, operative findings, and outcome. In addition to Effmann's classification, we used a newly proposed classification that depends on the orientation of the double urethral channels.
RESULTS: During the last 15 years, 18 patients were diagnosed to have double urethra at our pediatric surgical unit. We excluded four patients with 'Y-type' urethral duplication. The remaining 14 patients were divided into either sagittal or collateral duplication. Their age at presentation ranged from the neonatal period to 9 years. The sagittal urethral duplication included 12 male patients. All patients had two urethral channels, one above the other. The dorsal urethral channel was always characterized by poor function and ectopic course. The ventral channel was always the more functioning urethra, with a normal course from the urinary bladder to end either at an orthotopic meatus (subgroup A), or more proximally in a hypospadiac location (subgroup B). The collateral urethral duplication included two patients. Both patients were associated with duplication of the urinary bladder and the external genitalia as a part of caudal duplication syndrome. In this group, both urethrae had comparable function, lying side by side, and each draining a separate urinary bladder.
CONCLUSION: The double urethra is a diverse spectrum comprising different pathologies. Our proposed classification system of duplicated urethras is clinically relevant as it guides surgical management and allows prognostication of outcome.