Article Text

Download PDFPDF
CASE REPORT
Pitfalls of the duplex system: the mystery of the missing stone
  1. Donald Kudakwashe Nyanhongo,
  2. Satpal Antil,
  3. Syed Nasir
  1. Walsall Manor Hospital, Walsall, UK
  1. Correspondence to Donald Kudakwashe Nyanhongo, donald.nyanhongo{at}nhs.net

Summary

A duplex ureter constitutes about 1% of the renal tract anomalies.

A 39-year-old man presented with a 4-week history of left loin pain and microscopic haematuria. Investigation with a non-contrast CT KUB revealed a 6 mm non-obstructing calculus in the left distal ureter.

Left ureteroscopy and lithotripsy was planned. However, ureteroscopy failed to identify the calculus. A double J ureteric stent was left in situ and the procedure abandoned in favour of further assessment with a CT urogram. Imaging surprisingly showed a left duplex ureter with the calculus in the non-stented ureter.

Repeat ureteroscopy noted the second ureter opening within the distal intramural part of the stented ureter. The calculus was identified and laser lithotripsy performed. A double J stent was appropriately reinserted and removed 2 weeks later.

Our case highlights the importance of contrasted imaging prior to performing ureteroscopy for calculus disease.

  • Urology
  • Urological surgery
  • Renal intervention

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 DKN was involved with performing the literature search, patient consent, writing of the manuscript and formulating the final manuscript. SA was involved with proofreading the manuscript and making amendments to the manuscript. SN was involved with helping obtain consent from the patient and proofreading of the manuscript.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Patient consent Obtained.

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