Accidental cystectomy during laparoscopic excision of prostatic utricle cyst - a rare complication

Clinical Application of Ureteroscope-Assisted Laparoscopic Surgery for Prostatic Utricle in Children

Purpose: To investigate the use of ureteroscope-assisted laparoscopic surgery (UALS) in treating symptomatic prostatic utricle (PU) in children. Materials and Methods: Data on surgically treated cases of PU at the Department of Urology in Hunan Children's Hospital between September 2014 and September 2022 were retrospectively collected and analyzed. The diagnosis was confirmed by cystourethroscopy followed by ureteroscopy, and PU was excised by ureteroscope-assisted laparoscopy. Results: A total of 21 patients with PU were enrolled in this study. The median age of the patients at surgery was 8.1 (4.6-11.5) years. Karyotyping was available for 15 children: 13 (86.7%) were 46XY, 1 (6.7%) was 45X/46XY, and 1 (6.7%) was 45X/46XY/47XYY. The median length of the PU was 5.0 (4.1-7.1) cm. Nineteen patients underwent only ureteroscope-assisted laparoscopic excision, whereas 2 also had a perineal incision. All excisions were successfully performed. The median intraoperative blood loss was 25.0 (20.0-37.5) mL. The median hospital stay and follow-up durations were 18.0 (14.5-25.0) days and 24.0 (13.5-49.0) months, respectively. The patients reported no postoperative clinical symptoms. Conclusion: UALS allows for accurate patient positioning and thorough exposure of the anatomical structures, and it is a safe, effective, and minimally invasive treatment for PU in children.

K. P, Shetty J, Patil N. Symptomatic prostatic utricle: various approaches for treatment

Background

Pediatric presentations of a prostatic utricle have received only little attention. The incidence of symptomatic prostatic utricle has been reported but most cases are asymptomatic. The purpose of this study is to highlight the various clinical presentations and surgical approaches to treat a symptomatic prostatic utricle.

Results

This study includes a series of 7 cases over a period of 5 years. The diagnosis of prostatic was made on the basis of clinical presentations, ultrasonography, micturating cystourethrogram, and cystoscopy.

Of the 7 patients, the newborn patient had antenatally detected abdominal cystic mass which presented with postnatal urinary retention, 5 patients had various urinary complaints, and 1 older child with disorder of sexual differentiation (DSD) had urinary incontinence. Depending upon the grade of prostatic utricle, treatment was done in the form of laparoscopic-assisted excision in 1, laparotomy and excision in 1, perineal excision in 2, and cystoscopic fulguration in 3 patients. Postoperative period was uneventful. All the patients were followed for a period of 1–2 years. Most of them were asymptomatic except one child who had recurrent episodes of epidydimo orchitis which was treated conservatively, and he was also asymptomatic at the end of 1 year. Five patients who had associated hypospadias were observed for one year for any urinary complaints before they underwent definitive repair for hypospadias.

Conclusion

Prostatic utricle is a vestigial remnant of müllerian duct most commonly associated with posterior hypospadias. High index of suspicion for prostatic utricle in cases with recurrent urinary complaints helps in timely detection and appropriate treatment can prevent further complications. Cystoscopy and micturating cytourethrogram remains the gold standard for diagnosis.