 |
[Abstract] [PDF] [HTML] [Linked
References]
International Journal of Recent Trends in Science and Technology, ISSN 2277-2812 E-ISSN: 2249-8109
Volume 15, Issue 3, July 2015 pp 444-447
Research Article
Clinical evaluation of extratesticular lesion: A hospital based study
A Setu Madhavi1, K C T Naik2
1Assistant Professor, 2Associate Professor, Department of Surgery, RIMS Medical College, Ongole, Andhra Pradesh, INDIA.
Abstract
Introduction: Scrotal masses may be intratesticular or extratesticular, either solid or cystic. Most of the intratesticular masses should be considered malignant unless proved otherwise. Extratesticular cystic masses are almost certainly benign, whereas extratesticular solid masses have a malignant rate of 16%, which though being much lower than intratesticular masses, is high enough to be of concern. Amis and Objectives: To evaluate the clinical features of extratesticular lesion confirmed by USG and FNAC. Materials and Method: The present study was conducted in the department of surgery of RIMS medical college. To achieve the above, mentioned objective, all the patients of scrotal lesion attending the various OPDs were enrolled in the study. Thus total 71 cases of scrotal lesion were diagnosed during the study duration. Out of these 19 were excluded from the study as they were of testicular origin. 52(73.24%) were confirmed to be extratesticular lesion. The detail history of all the patients was taken which followed by clinical examination. All the positive findings were recorded in a prestructured proforma. The diagnosis of extra testicular lesion was confirmed by USG and FNAC wherever required. Results: In the present study total 71 cases of scrotal lesion with various complaints were presented in the surgery OPD, out of them 52 (73.24%) were of extratesticular origin whereas 19 (26.76%) were testicular origin. Majority of the patients (40.38%) with extra testicular swelling were 21-30 years of age. 61.54% presented with scrotal enlargement, while 3.85% complaint of multinodular swelling and 1.92% with massive swelling. Acute scrotal pain was the presenting complaint in 28.85% and mild pain was reported by 30.77% cases. 5.77% cases complaint of dragging pain. Chronic epididymitis was diagnosed in 30.77% cases whereas acute epididymitis was diagnosed in 15.38% cases. Hydrocele was diagnosed in 19.23% cases. Acute epididymo‑orchitis was diagnosed in 5.77% cases. In 5.77% cases scrotal sewing was due to trauma. Conclusion: Thus we conclude that majority of scrotal lesions were extratesticular origin. Epididymitis was the common extra testicular origin, out of which acute Epididymitis presents with fever, swelling, and acute pain whereas chronic epididymitis present with swelling and mild pain.
|
