ALL Metrics
-
Views
-
Downloads
Get PDF
Get XML
Cite
Export
Track
Case Report

Congenital duplication of the urethra with urethral diverticulum: a case report

[version 1; peer review: 2 approved, 1 not approved]
PUBLISHED 01 May 2014
Author details Author details
OPEN PEER REVIEW
REVIEWER STATUS

Abstract

Duplication of the urethra is a rare congenital anomaly. Urethral duplication with the presence of diverticulum is a rare combination and to the best of our knowledge has  not been previously reported. We report a case of a 16 month old male child with duplication of the urethra and diverticulum arising from the ventral urethra. We also cover the intricacies and challenges in the management of such a case.
The opening of the narrowed accessory dorsal urethra at the verumontanum was cauterized and gradually the dorsal urethra became atrophied. The ventral urethral diverticulum was excised. This case is unique due to:
  • The unusual presentation of swelling over the dorsum of the penis, together with duplication of the urethra with diverticulum.
  • The use of cauterization as a treatment modality. Cauterization of the ventral urethra with a Bugbee electrode and diverticulectomy was performed. A glidewire helped in identifying the small opening of the dorsal urethra at the level of the verumontanum.
 The case also highlights the importance of endoscopic management of this clinical entity.

Introduction

Duplication of the urethra is a rare congenital anomaly. Most cases involve incomplete duplication of the urethra. This anomaly is more common in males1. The etiology of urethral duplication is unclear, no hypothesis explains the basis for all cases2,3. Urethral duplication with the presence of a diverticulum is a rare combination and to the best of our knowledge has not been previously reported.

In this report we describe a rare case of urethral duplication presenting as a urethral diverticulum in the ventral urethral passage, whilst the dorsal opening was abnormal. We also allude to the intricacies and challenges in the management of such a case.

Case report

A 16 month old male child from India with duplication of the urethra and a diverticulum arising from ventral urethra was presented at our clinic in 2013. He presented with swelling of the penis, which increased in size with urination. General examination revealed an otherwise healthy child. Local examination revealed an approximately 4×2cm sized soft tissue swelling on the ventral aspect of the distal part of penis, cystic in nature (Figure 1A). The meatus at the tip of the glans (dorsal urethral opening) of the penis was tiny and admitted a no. 22 G Intracath tip. On compression, drops of urine egressed from the meatal opening. Another meatal opening (ventral urethral opening) was seen 10mm proximal and ventral to first opening, which was wide and admitted a 10fr (3.33mm) infant feeding tube. A micturating cystourethrogram (MCUG) showed complete duplication of the urethra with a diverticulum arising from ventral urethra near its terminal part with a small para ureteral bladder diverticulum (Figure 1B).

b67fa1ff-fda6-4d89-bb4e-f0aeca8e56f0_figure1.gif

Figure 1.

1A) Clinical photograph showing diverticulum at the distal part of the penis. 1B) Micturating cystourethrogram showing complete duplication of the urethra in the sagittal plane. Large diverticulum arising from distal part of ventral urethra with small bladder diverticulum.

Cytsoscopy was done with a 9.5Fr cystoscope (KarlStorz, Germany). A Bugbee electrode, 3fr (KarlStorz, Germany) that could pass through a 3fr working channel of the cystoscope was used. Cystoscopy revealed a normal ventral urethra with a diverticulum. The dorsal urethra was abnormal and was narrowed in the proximal part. Its opening into the normal ventral urethra was localized with difficulty after passing a 0.025”/0.64mm glidewire (Terumo Corporation, Tokyo-Japan) through it (Figure 2A). The opening was just proximal to the verumontanum at 10 o’clock. The dorsal urethra was cauterized at its opening into the ventral urethra using a Bugbee electrode and open diverticulectomy of the ventral urethral diverticulum was performed.

b67fa1ff-fda6-4d89-bb4e-f0aeca8e56f0_figure2.gif

Figure 2.

2A) Pictorial diagram showing the glidewire passed from the dorsal urethra to identify its opening into the normal ventral urethra. The cystoscope was passed from the ventral urethra up to the opening of dorsal urethra with a Bugbee electrode for fulguration of this opening. 2B) Post-operative micturating cystourethrogram showing normal urethra, no urethral diverticulum and complete obliteration of the dorsal urethra is noted.

The patient was doing well at 6 months follow up with a good urinary stream (Figure 2B).

Discussion

Duplication of the urethra can occur with complete duplication of the penis or urinary bladder in the most extreme cases4. Urethral duplication may be sagittal or collateral. In our case it was sagittal. Sagittal duplication takes the form of two channels running one above the other in the sagittal plane, whereas in the collateral form, the duplicate urethras run side by side. Most urethral duplications occur in the sagittal plane within a single penis and most are incomplete. Usually in such cases the ventral urethra is the dominant one5. The most common sagittal variety is an orthotopic principal urethral channel and an epispadiac accessory urethra lying dorsal to it.

There are several different classifications describing urethral duplications. The classification by Effman et al. is the most widely used6. According to this classification; the present case was type II A-2 (complete urethral duplication with the second urethra arising from first one and coursing independently into separate meatus).

Clinical presentation varies from type to type. Double urinary stream is one of the presentations of urethra duplication and may be bothersome when the ventral meatus is too proximal over the penis. Presentation may also include repeated urinary tract infections, incontinence or it may be asymptomatic and the only concern being a double meatus7. This happens particularly when both meatus are very nearby.

Clinical examination and retrograde urethrogram (RGU) with MCUG should be sufficient for diagnosis in most cases. However, sonourethrograms and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) are now also being used as adjunct procedures. Both will give excellent soft tissue details such as plaque or calcification which are associated with chordee in such cases8.

Detailed knowledge of urethral duplication is important when planning for any surgical procedure for its correction. Many patients are asymptomatic and do not require any surgery. Indications for surgery are bothersome symptoms and cosmetic or functional deformity. Surgical reconstruction varies from case to case. It may range from simple meatoplasty to complex staged urethroplasty, depending on the severity of case. Most procedures involve excision of the accessory urethra with reconstruction of the dominant urethra9. A favorable outcome is achieved in most of cases after reconstructive surgery. Dilatation of the orthotopic urethra is s more controversial option10. Holst et al. have described fulguration of an atypical urethra as another treatment option11.

Our treatment technique in this case was unique (minimally invasive) and successful. The opening of narrowed accessory urethra at the verumontanum was cauterized and the dorsal narrow accessory urethra gradually atrophied and had disappeared at a 6 month follow up MCUG. The ventral urethral diverticulum was excised at same time. This approach was chosen, given the concerns of infertility and incontinence associated with excision of such a long abnormal urethral tract5.

In summary, the uniqueness of our case lies in the following facts:

  • Unusual presentation of swelling over the dorsum of the penis, duplication of urethra with diverticulum.

  • Cauterization was used as a treatment. Cauterization of the ventral urethra with a Bugbee electrode and diverticulectomy was offered as a treatment modality. The glidewire helped in identifying the small opening.

The case also highlights the importance of endoscopic management of this clinical entity.

Consent

Before surgical procedure written informed consent obtained from patient’s parents. Written informed consent for publication of clinical details and clinical images was also obtained.

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 1
VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 01 May 2014
Comment
Author details Author details
Competing interests
Grant information
Copyright
Download
 
Export To
metrics
Views Downloads
F1000Research - -
PubMed Central
Data from PMC are received and updated monthly.
- -
Citations
CITE
how to cite this article
Shah DH, Ganpule AP, Sabnis RB and Desai MR. Congenital duplication of the urethra with urethral diverticulum: a case report [version 1; peer review: 2 approved, 1 not approved] F1000Research 2014, 3:99 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.3848.1)
NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.
track
receive updates on this article
Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article.

Open Peer Review

Current Reviewer Status: ?
Key to Reviewer Statuses VIEW
ApprovedThe paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested
Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit.
Not approvedFundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions
Version 1
VERSION 1
PUBLISHED 01 May 2014
Views
10
Cite
Reviewer Report 20 Aug 2014
Tamsin Jillian Greenwell, Institute of Urology, University College London Hospital, London, UK 
Approved
VIEWS 10
This is a nicely written case report of a ... Continue reading
CITE
CITE
HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT
Greenwell TJ. Reviewer Report For: Congenital duplication of the urethra with urethral diverticulum: a case report [version 1; peer review: 2 approved, 1 not approved]. F1000Research 2014, 3:99 (https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.4121.r5660)
NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.
Views
15
Cite
Reviewer Report 08 Aug 2014
Sanjay B. Kulkarni, Department of Urology, Centre for Reconstructive Urethral Surgery, Pune, Maharashtra, India 
Pankaj Joshi, Department of Urology, Centre for Reconstructive Urology, Pune, Maharashtra, India 
Approved
VIEWS 15
This is a good case report.

It highlights the fact that urethral duplication has varied presentations.

Ventral divertculum actually helped in diagnosing the patient early as it was a symptomatic cosmetic presentation.

The authors are highly skilled in Endourology and skillfully performed the ... Continue reading
CITE
CITE
HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT
Kulkarni SB and Joshi P. Reviewer Report For: Congenital duplication of the urethra with urethral diverticulum: a case report [version 1; peer review: 2 approved, 1 not approved]. F1000Research 2014, 3:99 (https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.4121.r5659)
NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.
Views
30
Cite
Reviewer Report 01 Aug 2014
Ali Tourchi, Division of Pediatric Urology, The Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore, MD, USA 
Not Approved
VIEWS 30
The case reported in this paper is an extremely rare presentation of urethral duplication which led me to read it three times. Urethral duplication is a rare congenital finding in pediatric urology. Most patients with this anomaly are asymptomatic. When they ... Continue reading
CITE
CITE
HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT
Tourchi A. Reviewer Report For: Congenital duplication of the urethra with urethral diverticulum: a case report [version 1; peer review: 2 approved, 1 not approved]. F1000Research 2014, 3:99 (https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.4121.r5280)
NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 1
VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 01 May 2014
Comment
Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article:
Approved - the paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested
Approved with reservations - A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit.
Not approved - fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions
Sign In
If you've forgotten your password, please enter your email address below and we'll send you instructions on how to reset your password.

The email address should be the one you originally registered with F1000.

Email address not valid, please try again

You registered with F1000 via Google, so we cannot reset your password.

To sign in, please click here.

If you still need help with your Google account password, please click here.

You registered with F1000 via Facebook, so we cannot reset your password.

To sign in, please click here.

If you still need help with your Facebook account password, please click here.

Code not correct, please try again
Email us for further assistance.
Server error, please try again.