Cargando…
Congenital absence of vas deferens and ectopic kidney
INTRODUCTION: Congenital absence of the vas deferens (CUAVD) is a rare clinical entity, usually discovered accidently during surgical procedures of the urogenital zone, CUAVD has the prevalence of 0.5–1.0% in male population and it is associated with various forms of congenital genitourinary malform...
Autores principales: | , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Elsevier
2017
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5379864/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28376421 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijscr.2017.03.019 |
Sumario: | INTRODUCTION: Congenital absence of the vas deferens (CUAVD) is a rare clinical entity, usually discovered accidently during surgical procedures of the urogenital zone, CUAVD has the prevalence of 0.5–1.0% in male population and it is associated with various forms of congenital genitourinary malformations like renal agenesis. we present a case of a 21 years old, male, managed in our private hospital for varicoceles and discovered to have CUAVD and ectopic kidney. PRESENTATION OF CASE: A 21 years old male, with no significant medical or surgical history presented to our out-patient clinic complaining of scrotal heaviness and pain. upon physical examination he was discovered to have a bilateral varicocele and was scheduled for a bilateral varicocelectomy, during the procedure he was discovered with left side CUAVD. DISCUSSION: Congenital unilateral absence of the vas deference is a very rare clinical entity in the male population it has an incidence of 0.5–1.0%. it is usually discovered during evaluation for infertility or surgical procedures of the urogenital zone. Unilateral congenital absence of the vas deference is more associated with renal agenesis (73.3%), compared to the bilateral form (11.8%)(.) CAVD is responsible of 1–2% of male infertility. CONCLUSION: Congenital absence of the vas deference is a unique clinical entity due to its great association with a large variety of urogenital abnormalities, we present this case to stress the importance of including scrotal examination in the routine physical exam to reduce the late diagnosis of such abnormality and it associated comorbidities. |
---|