To excise or not to excise infected urachal cysts: A case report and review of the literature

Embryology of the urogenital tract; a practical overview for urogynecologic surgeons

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS

Urinary tract anomalies are one of the most common birth defects. Nevertheless, they prove challenging to diagnose as a result of variable presenting symptoms. We aimed to perform a review of urogenital tract development, highlight common congenital upper urinary tract anomalies encountered by urogynecologists and tools to facilitate diagnosis.

METHODS

Multiple searches were performed utilizing resources such as PubMed and the TriHealth library database to access publications related to embryology of the urinary tract and urinary tract anomalies. Each citation was reviewed.

RESULTS

Congenital urinary tract anomalies account for up to 20% of all birth defects and occur more often in females. The true incidence of these malformations is unknown as some can remain clinically insignificant throughout life. In addition, patients may present with non-specific complaints such as urinary tract infections, nephrolithiasis or urinary incontinence. Therefore, unsuspected anomalies pose a risk of delayed diagnosis and potential injury during urogynecologic surgery. Imaging modalities such as computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging are the most common diagnostic tests. Management and treatment options range from observation to surgical resection with the goal of optimizing long-term functionality and prevention of chronic sequelae.

CONCLUSION

Patients with urinary tract anomalies can present with vague complaints often encountered by urogynecologists. It is crucial to understand the embryologic development of urinary tract anomalies to help facilitate diagnosis and guide care within the office and operating room setting.

Is excision necessary in the management of adult urachal remnants?: a 12-year experience at a single institution

OBJECTIVES

To determine the ideal management of uncomplicated adult urachal remnants and to confirm if conservative management with repeated imaging is acceptable.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This is a retrospective review of clinical notes and imaging of 45 patients with a mean age of 54.6 years who had been diagnosed with urachal anomalies at a single urology tertiary centre from January 2005 to December 2016. Patients who underwent surgical intervention and findings from patients managed non-operatively, with a mean follow up of 31 months, were evaluated.

RESULTS

Thirty (66.7%) patients had incidental findings, while 15 (33.3%) were symptomatic. Eight underwent excision, one underwent an incision and drainage of abscess, while 34 of the 36 remaining patients elected to undergo surveillance with repeated ultrasound imaging. Two were lost to follow-up. Malignancy was confirmed in three patients. There was interval stability of the urachal remnant in all the patients in the non-operative cohort. The small sample size, limited follow-up, and retrospective nature of the study are recognised limitations.

CONCLUSIONS

It was found that simple and asymptomatic lesions can be monitored with ultrasound, but effort must be made on initial diagnosis to ensure that malignancy is excluded using CT imaging and flexible cystoscopy where possible. Long-term follow-up of this cohort is required to assess the natural history of observed urachal anomalies.