Article Text

Download PDFPDF
CASE REPORT
Robotic partial nephrectomy for duplex kidney with ectopic ureter draining in the vagina in an adult patient with urinary incontinence
  1. Humza Mahmood1,
  2. Marios Hadjipavlou2,
  3. Raj Das3,
  4. Chris Anderson2
  1. 1Princess Alexandra Hospital NHS Trust, Harlow, Essex, UK
  2. 2Department of Urology, St George's Hospital, London, UK
  3. 3Department of Radiology, St George's Hospital, London, UK
  1. Correspondence to Humza Mahmood, humza.mahmood{at}hotmail.com

Summary

A duplex kidney system with an ectopic ureter draining into the vagina is a congenital malformation that typically presents as refractory urinary incontinence. Diagnosis is often difficult to establish and delayed due to a low incidence. We present the case of a patient aged 26 years with a life-long history of persistent urinary incontinence. Initial presentation was at childhood; however, the diagnosis went undetermined for 22 years. CT urography revealed a duplex kidney with an atrophic upper pole associated with an ectopic ureter that drained into the vaginal vault. This is the first description of such a case being managed successfully via a robot-assisted partial nephrectomy approach. Ectopic ureteral duplication should be considered in the differential diagnosis for young women with refractory urinary incontinence. Robotic partial nephrectomy is a safe and effective technique to manage such cases.

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Footnotes

  • Contributors HM is responsible for case report synthesis, literature review and final manuscript review. MH is responsible for case report synthesis and final manuscript review. RD is responsible for image reconstruction and final manuscript review. CA provided case and surgical details and final manuscript review.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Patient consent Obtained.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.