4.7 Article

Ejaculatory duct obstruction caused by a right giant seminal vesicle with an ipsilateral upper urinary tract agenesia: an embryologic malformation

期刊

FERTILITY AND STERILITY
卷 89, 期 2, 页码 390-394

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2007.03.009

关键词

ejaculatory duct obstruction; upper urinary tract agenesis; Zinner syndrome; transurethral resection ejaculatory duct

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To report our experience with TURED in infertile men with EDO associated with abnormal development of the mesonephric or Wolffian duct, causing a contemporary malformation of the ipsilateral upper urinary tract. Design: Retrospective clinical study. Setting: Infertile men in an hospital environment. Patient(s): Seven patients affected by Zinner syndrome, from March to September 2005, were selected. Intervention(s): Underwent TURED. Main Outcome Measure(s): Semen analysis, endocrine profile, transrectal ultrasonography and seminal vesicles aspiration, excretory urography, computerized tomography (CT), or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Result(s): Before surgery, the patients experienced a decreased intensity and force of ejaculation and a low motile sperm count. The detection of the ipsilateral upper urinary tract malformation by the patients was incidental. After surgery, all patients reported having a projectile ejaculation, an increase in the average postoperative volume, and of the total motile sperm count. Conclusion(s): A seminal vesicle cyst combined with ipsilateral renal agenesis, described as Zinner syndrome, is a rare urological anomaly. It is frequently asymptomatic or else characterized by infertility, symptoms of bladder irritation, or pain in the scrotum and perineum. In selected patients, TURED can improve semen quality with subsequent ability to impregnate. The upper urinary tract malformation should be treated in symptomatic cases only. (Fertil Steril (R) 2008;89:390-4. (c) 2008 by American Society for Reproductive Medicine.)

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据