Epidydimo-orchitis and anorectal malformations: when and in whom?

Urological Impact of Epididymo-orchitis in Patients with Anorectal Malformation: An ARM-Net Consortium Study

INTRODUCTION

 To investigate the current experience of the ARM-Net Consortium in the management of epididymo-orchitis (EO) in patients with anorectal malformations (ARMs), and to identify specific risk factors and the need for urological care involvement.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

 We retrospectively collected data of EO in patients with ARM between 2015 and 2019. Data on urological aspects, ARM type, surgical approach, associated anomalies, diagnosis, and treatment of EO were collected and analyzed.

RESULTS

 Twenty-nine patients were reported by 12 centers. Twenty-six patients with EO (90%) had ARM with a rectourinary fistula. Median age at first EO was 2 years (range: 15 days-27 years). Twenty patients (69%) experienced multiple EO, and 60% of recurrences were ipsilateral. Associated urological anomalies included vesicoureteral reflux (48%), urethral anomalies (41%), neurogenic bladder (41%), and ectopic vas (10%). A positive urine culture during EO was present in 69%. EO was treated with antibiotics (90%), limiting surgical exploration to 14%. Prevention of recurrences included surgery (bulking agents 15%, vasectomy 15%, and orchiectomy 5%) and antibiotic prophylaxis (20%).

CONCLUSION

 Urologists may encounter patients with EO in ARM patients, frequently with positive urine culture. An appropriate urologic work-up for most ARM patients is necessary to identify and treat underlying risk factors. A practical scheme for the work-up is suggested for a close collaboration between pediatric surgeons and urologists.

Unilateral vasectomy for intractable epididiymo-orchitis in patients with anorectal malformation

BACKGROUND

Male patients treated for anorectal malformations (ARM) and recto-urethral fistula (RUF) tend to develop recurrent epididymo-orchitis (EO) which occurs approximately in 20% of all them. The optimal management of this condition is unclear because of the extreme its rarity and the unavailability of detailed analysis in literature. To date the majority of this patients benefits from medical treatment and symptoms reduce over time but few data have been published in literature about management of patients with intractable EO.

OBJECTIVE

To describe the efficacy of unilateral vasectomy in patients operated on for anorectal malformations with RUF and affected by intractable EO.

STUDY DESIGN

We present five patients who met the criteria for intractable EO, and followed at our centre four of whom have undergone unilateral vasectomy.

RESULTS

The first episode of EO presented at 42,00 mos ±29.39. Initially, patients were all managed with analgesics and antibiotics. For the failure of therapy, five patients were all offered unilateral vasectomy but only four families accepted procedure. Surgical treatment was performed as a day case without complications. Postoperative follow up was 88,50 mos ±68.36. Prompt and durable resolution of symptoms was observed.

DISCUSSION

The long-term effects of recurrent EO in ARM are often underestimated. Prompt and appropriate intervention should prevent this undesirable sequela. Unfortunately, the optimal management of this complication is unclear, partly because of its extreme rarity. The established management needs to follow the route of correcting underlying anomalies and providing long-term analgesic and antibiotics but this may have undesired side effects. We therefore offered families vasectomy for complete symptom resolution and/or drug withdrawal. Vasectomy, as a form of treatment for, can be justified if it can prevent pain, infection and destruction of the testes. Early vasectomy may save enough functional testis tissue.

CONCLUSION

To date, the only available treatment to achieve definitive resolution of symptoms in intractable unilateral EO is vasectomy. Long-term effects of such procedure on fertility are unknown. The treatment of recurrent EO in cases without site predilection remains a matter of contention.

United Kingdom British association for sexual health and HIV national guideline for the management of epididymo-orchitis, 2020

The British Association for Sexual Health and HIV (BASHH) UK guideline for the management of epididymo-orchitis has been updated in 2020. It offers advice on diagnostic tests, treatment and health promotion principles in the effective management of epididymo-orchitis. Empirical treatment should be started in patients with objective swelling and tenderness on testicular examination. First-line empirical treatment for sexually acquired epididymo-orchitis has changed to ceftriaxone 1g intramuscularly and doxycycline. Higher dose of ceftriaxone in line with the BASHH 2018 gonorrhoea guideline ensures effective treatment of strains with reduced susceptibility. Ofloxacin or doxycycline is recommended in patients with epididymo-orchitis probably due to non-gonococcal organisms (e.g. negative microscopy for gram-negative intracellular diplococci or no risk factors for gonorrhoea identified). Where Mycoplasma genitalium is tested and identified, treatment should include an appropriate antibiotic (e.g. moxifloxacin). If enteric pathogens are a likely cause (e.g. older patient, not sexually active, recent instrumentation, men who practice insertive anal intercourse, men with known abnormalities of the urinary tract or a positive urine dipstick for leucocytes and nitrites), ofloxacin and levofloxacin are recommended. A clinical care pathway has been produced to simplify the management of epididymo-orchitis. A patient information leaflet has been developed.

Long term follow up of proximal hypospadias repair-urethral stricture should be excluded in adults who present with epididymo-orchitis

Objective

Epididymo-orchitis (EO) is a well-known complication of urinary tract infections (UTI) in children. This is commonly seen in children who had hypospadias repair or in those who had surgery for anorectal malformation especially when it results in urethral stricture. However EO occurring as a complication of urethral stricture in adults operated for hypospadias in childhood is not well documented in the literature.

Material and methods

This is a retrospective review of four adults who had proximal hypospadias repair in childhood. All four men presented to us with EO. They were thoroughly investigated to rule out presence of urethral stricture.

Results

Three patients had urethral stricture of which two responded well to dilatation and one required cystoscopy and visual internal urethrotomy. The fourth patient did not have urethral stricture. EO in this patient is thought to be due to excessive straining during micturition causing reflux into seminal vesicles.

Conclusion

Urethral stricture should be excluded in any adult who had a hypospadias repair and presents with EO. Urethral strictures after hypospadias surgery respond well to dilatation and to endoscopic urethrotomy.