International urology and nephrology · 2011
True duplication of the vas deferens: a case report and review of literature.
Клинический случайСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Liang Mike K, Subramanian Anuradha, Weedin John, Griffith Donald P, Awad Samir S
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Duplication of the vas deferens is the identification of a second vas deferens within the spermatic cord; it is a rarely reported congenital anomaly. Duplicate vas deferens should not be confused with double vas deferens that describes ipsilateral renal agenesis with a blind ureter ending in the ejaculatory system.
DATA SOURCES: We present a case of duplicated vas deferens, and a PubMed Medline (National Library of Medicine) search was performed using the terms "[duplicated OR double]" and "vas deferens". Nineteen papers for a total of twenty-two cases (including ours) were identified.
CONCLUSIONS: Duplication of vas deferens is a rare finding; it is likely under-reported and underrecognized. Failure to recognize this variation can result in injury to the vas deferens or an ineffective vasectomy. Following identification of a suspected duplicated vas deferens, the structure should be tracked from the internal ring down to the epididymis and intra-operative Doppler should be performed. Post-operatively, renal and bladder imaging can be considered though there have been no reported cases of non-testicular genito-urinary anomalies associated with duplicated vas deferens.
DATA SOURCES: We present a case of duplicated vas deferens, and a PubMed Medline (National Library of Medicine) search was performed using the terms "[duplicated OR double]" and "vas deferens". Nineteen papers for a total of twenty-two cases (including ours) were identified.
CONCLUSIONS: Duplication of vas deferens is a rare finding; it is likely under-reported and underrecognized. Failure to recognize this variation can result in injury to the vas deferens or an ineffective vasectomy. Following identification of a suspected duplicated vas deferens, the structure should be tracked from the internal ring down to the epididymis and intra-operative Doppler should be performed. Post-operatively, renal and bladder imaging can be considered though there have been no reported cases of non-testicular genito-urinary anomalies associated with duplicated vas deferens.