The futility of continued surveillance of epididymal cysts: A study of the prevalence and clinico-demographics in pre- vs. post-pubertal boys
DOI :
https://doi.org/10.5489/cuaj.5667Mots-clés :
Epididymal cysts, Surveillance, Cost, PubertalRésumé
Introduction: The first description of epididymal cysts in children appears from a 1976 case study. Since then, there have been a total of 24 indexed publications relating to pediatric epididymal cysts. Risk factors that may exist for children presenting with epididymal cyst remain unknown, as has the best method of management. And there have not been any studies looking at the cost implications of this diagnosis. The aim of this study was to assess the incidence, clinico-demographics, outcomes, and costs of epididymal cysts in prepubertal boys compared with a post-pubertal epididymal cyst cohort, and to assess whether this cohort requires continued surveillance.
Methods: Our institutional ultrasound (US) database was searched for all scrotal US. From these, a filtered, institution review board-approved search was performed for any reports containing the word “cyst.” These were then cross-referenced with a retrospective chart review (October 2006 to September 2017). Clinicodemographics, cyst characteristics, and outcomes were analyzed for both pre- and post-pubertal boys using descriptive and nonparametric statistical methods.
Results: Of 4508 boys undergoing scrotal US during the study period, 191 were indicated to contain cysts. This was manually reduced to 109 scans (2.4%) that met inclusion criteria (85 pre-pubertal; 24 post-pubertal). Thirty-one scans were ordered by urology, including all those with abnormal testicular echotexture (n=5). The average age of the post-pubertal cohort was 15.8 years, compared with 3.8 years in the pre-pubertal cohort. Most (70.5%) epididymal cysts were incidental. There was no difference between the pre- and post-pubertal cohorts in terms of presence of hydroceles (p=0.9), symptoms (p=0.9), ordering service (p=0.61), rate of resolution (4.2% vs. 8.2%; p=0.68), or length of followup (4 vs. 4.5 years; p=0.44). Pre-pubertal cysts were significantly smaller in size (3.35 vs. 14.52 mm; p=0.025) and more likely to trigger repeat scanning (67 vs. 10; p=0.008). There were no operative interventions and no subsequent clinical deterioration occurred with observation. At a cost of $71.10 CAD per US, $15 002.10 CAD was expended on epididymal cyst surveillance in direct cost to the healthcare system.
Conclusions: Epididymal cysts are comparable in both pre- and post-pubertal boys and can be safely managed non-operatively without the use of continued US surveillance or urological referral. The higher than expected rate of detection may be a result of the improved ultra-resolution of modern scanners. These children should not require continued followup with repeat surveillance imaging solely for epididymal cysts and could be managed in the primary care setting as part of routine clinical examination.
Téléchargements
Références
Bissada NK, Redman JF. Unusual masses in the spermatic cord: report of six cases and review of the literature. South Med J. 69(11): 1410-1412 (1976)
Whitaker RH. Benign testicular swellings. Practitioner. 226(1373): 1851-1859 (1982)
Finkelstein MS, Rosenberg HK, Snyder HM 3rd, Duckett JW. Ultrasound evaluation of scrotum in pediatrics. Urology. 27(1): 1-9 (1986)
Homayoon K, Suhre CD, Steinhardt GF. Epididymal cysts in children: natural history. J Urol. 171(3): 1274-6127 (2004)
Posey ZQ, Ahn HJ, Junewick J, Chen JJ, Steinhardt GF. Rate and associations of epididymal cysts on pediatric scrotal ultrasound. J Urol. 184(4 Suppl): 1739-1742 (2010)
Niedzielski J, Miodek M, Krakós M. Epididymal cysts in childhood - conservative or surgical approach? Pol Przegl Chir. 84(8): 406-410 (2012)
Shah VS, Nepple KG, Lee DK. Routine pathology evaluation of hydrocele and spermatocele specimens is associated with significant costs and no identifiable benefit. J Urol. 192(4): 1179-1182 (2014)
Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care. Schedule of Benefits for Physician Services Under the Health Insurance Act. Toronto: Government of Ontario, 2015
Sorenson JR, Levy HL, Mangione TW et al. Parental response to repeat testing of infants with ‘false-positive’ results in a newborn screening program. Pediatrics 73: 183–187 (1984)
Racine NM, Riddell RR, Khan M et al. Systematic review: predisposing, precipitating, perpetuating, and present factors predicting anticipatory dis- tress to painful medical procedures in children. J Pediatr Psychol 41: 159–181 (2016)
Jelloul L, Billerey C, Ait Ali Slimane M, Mboyo A, Aubert D. Epididymal cysts in adolescents. Ann Urol (Paris). 33 (2): 104-108 (1999)
Annam A, Munden MM, Mehollin-Ray AR, Schady D, Browne LP. Extratesticular masses in children: taking ultrasound beyond paratesticular rhabdomyosarcoma. Pediatr Radiol. 45(9): 1382-1391 (2015)
Karaman A, Afşarlar CE, Arda N. Epididymal cyst: not always a benign condition. Int J Urol. 20(4): 457-458 (2013)
Woodward PJ, Schwab CM, Sesterhenn IA. From the archives of the AFIP: extratesticular scrotal masses: radiologic-pathologic correlation. Radiographics. 23(1): 215-240 (2003)
Aragona F, Pescatori E, Talenti E, Tomà P, Malena S, et al. Painless scrotal masses in the pediatric population: prevalence and age distribution of different pathological conditions -A 10 year retrospective multicenter study. J Urol. 155(4): 1424-6 (1996)
Patoulias D, Kalogirou M, Patoulias I. Intraparenchymal Epididymal Cyst (IEC) 4 cm in Diameter in a 15-Year Old Male Patient; a Case Report and Review of the Literature. Acta Medica (Hradec Kralove). 59(4): 137-139 (2016)
Erikci V, Hoşgör M, Aksoy N, Okur Ö, Yildiz M, et al. Management of epididymal cysts in childhood. J Pediatr Surg. 48(10): 2153-2156 (2013)
Erikçi V, Hoşgör M, Yıldız M, Aksoy N, Okur Ö, et al. Torsion of an epididymal cyst: a case report and review of the literature. Turk J Pediatr. 55(6): 659-661 (2013)
Yilmaz E, Batislam E, Bozdogan O, Basar H, Basar MM. Torsion of an epididymal cyst. Int J Urol. 11(3): 182-183 (2004)
Odabaş O, Aydin S, Yilmaz Y. Torsion of a spermatocele. J Urol. 154(6): 2143 (1995)
Lord PH. A bloodless operation for spermatocoele or cyst of the epididymis. Br J Surg 57(9): 641-644 (1970)
Menon VS, Sheridan WG. Benign scrotal pathology: should all patients undergo surgery? BJU Int. 88(3): 251-254 (2001)
Heindorff H, Johansen JR, Lausten GS. Spermatocele of the testis A follow-up study of 42 surgically treated patients. Ugeskr Laeger. 145(17): 1302-1303 (1983)
Tammela TL, Hellström PA, Mattila SI, Ottelin PJ, Malinen LJ, et al. Ethanolamine oleate sclerotherapy for hydroceles and spermatoceles: a survey of 158 patients with ultrasound follow-up. J Urol. 147(6): 1551-1553 (1992)
Mattila SI, Tammela TL, Makarainen HP, Hellstrom PA. Ultrasound follow-up of ethanolamine oleate sclerotherapy for spermatoceles. Eur Urol 23(3): 361-365 (1993)
Hicks N, Gupta S. Complications and risk factors in elective benign scrotal surgery. Scand J Urol. 50(6): 468-471 (2016)
Kiddoo DA, Wollin TA, Mador DR. A population based assessment of complications following outpatient hydrocoelectomy and spermatocoelectomy. J Urol 171: 746-748 (2004)
Shah VS, Nepple KG, Lee DK. Routine pathology evaluation of hydrocele and spermatocele specimens is associated with significant costs and no identifiable benefit. J Urol. 192(4): 1179-1182 (2014)
Skakkebaek NE, Rajpert-DeMeyts E, Main KM. Testicular dysgenesis syndrome: an increasingly common developmental disorder with environmental aspects. Hum Reprod. 16(5): 972-978 (2001)
Téléchargements
Publié-e
Comment citer
Numéro
Rubrique
Licence
Les auteurs accordent les droits d’auteurs liés à l’article et son contenu à l’Association des urologues du Canada. Cette entente signifie que vous ne pouvez pas faire ce qui suit, sans d’abord obtenir l’autorisation écrite de l’AUC :
- Afficher l’article sur tout site Web.
- Traduire ou autoriser une tierce partie à traduire l’article.
- Copier ou reproduire l’article par quelque moyen que ce soit et sous tout format que ce soit, ou autoriser d’autres à le faire, au-delà de ce qui est permis par la loi canadienne du droit d’auteur.
- Copier ou reproduire des sections de l’article, y compris les tableaux et figures, par quelque moyen que ce soit, ou autoriser d’autres à le faire, au-delà de ce qui est permis par la loi canadienne du droit d’auteur.
L’AUC encourage l’usage des articles à des fins éducatives sans but commercial et ne refusera pas sans motif raisonnable toute demande d’autorisation à cet effet.
Vous conservez le droit moral lié à l’article et son contenu. Cela signifie que l’AUC ne peut utiliser ses droits d’auteurs d’une manière telle que cela pourrait avoir des répercussions négatives sur votre réputation ou sur votre droit à être associé à l’article.
L’AUC exige également que vous garantissiez ce qui suit :
- Vous êtes l’auteur ou les auteurs et seul(s) propriétaire(s) du contenu, le contenu de l’article est original et n’a jamais été publié et vous n’en avez pas déjà cédé les droits d’auteurs ni accordé de licence concernant son contenu à toute autre tierce partie;
- Toutes les personnes qui ont contribué de manière considérable à la rédaction de l’article sont mentionnées;
- L’article ne viole aucun droit de propriété de toute tierce partie, et vous avez obtenu les autorisations requises pour inclure les travaux d’autres personnes dans cet article; et
- L’article ne diffame aucune tierce partie ni ne viole les droits à la vie privée de toute tierce partie.
