Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Urethral duplication in a 1 year old: a rare case report
  1. Deepak Vineel Sai Kallepalli1,
  2. Prakash Agarwal2,
  3. Jegadeesh Sundaram2 and
  4. Selvapriya Bharathi2
  1. 1General Surgery, Sri Ramachandra Institute of Higher Education and Research, Chennai, Porur, India
  2. 2Paediatric Surgery, Sri Ramachandra Institute of Higher Education and Research, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India
  1. Correspondence to Dr Deepak Vineel Sai Kallepalli; vineelsaideepak{at}gmail.com

Abstract

An 8-month-old male child presented with the complaint of two separate urinary streams from the penis. The child had no complaints of incontinence or recurrent UTI (urinary tract infection). Initial diagnosis of urethrocutaneous fistula was made and proceeded to micturating cystourethrography (MCU) and found to be having a urethral duplication. The duplicated urethra was excised and accessory urethra closed. Postoperatively, the child was followed up for 1 year and had no complaints of recurrence or incontinence. Through this case report, we learn about different classification systems and types of urethral duplication and their associated anomalies, and mode of management, which is mainly surgical. Further, management should be individualised to each patient based on their complaints and intraoperative findings.

  • paediatric surgery
  • urology
  • urinary tract infections
  • urological surgery

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 DVSK: Collecting data and writing the draft. SB, MS, MCh: Collecting images. JS, MS, MCh: Editing the draft. PA, MS, MCh: Final editing of the draft.

  • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

  • Competing interests None declared.

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