ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION AND IMPORTANCE: Primary adenocarcinoma of the renal pelvis is a rare and unique malignancy, representing a small fraction of renal cancers and posing significant diagnostic challenges due to its unusual presentation and similarity in symptoms to more common excretory tract disorders. This case emphasizes the importance of distinguishing this pathology from other renal neoplasms and metastatic adenocarcinomas that originate in the digestive tract. CASE PRESENTATION: We report the case of a 34-year-old man with no significant medical history who presented persistent lower back pain but no hematuria, which is atypical for renal pathologies. Initial imaging identified a 30 × 14 mm enhancement mass in the right renal pelvis. Surgical intervention was performed through right nephroureterectomy, including excision of the bladder cuff. Histopathological examination confirmed the diagnosis of primary intestinal-type adenocarcinoma of the renal pelvis, characterized by necrotic carcinomatous proliferation with varying architectural patterns and occasional signet ring cells. CLINICAL DISCUSSION: The diagnosis of primary renal pelvis adenocarcinoma is complicated by its nonspecific symptomatology and the potential for misdiagnosis as a more common urothelial carcinoma or a metastatic digestive-origin adenocarcinoma. Immunohistochemical staining supported a primary rather than metastatic digestive tract origin. This case underscores the need for a comprehensive diagnostic approach, including advanced imaging and meticulous histopathological analysis, to effectively differentiate this rare entity from other neoplasms. CONCLUSIONS: This case highlights the diagnostic complexities and the critical need to be aware among clinicians about rare renal cancers such as primary adenocarcinoma of the renal pelvis. It also stresses the importance of interdisciplinary collaboration in the diagnosis and management of such rare cases, improving our understanding and requiring timely and accurate treatment.
ABSTRACT
Introduction and importance: Penile strangulation is a medical emergency characterized by the encirclement of the penis by an external object, resulting in circulatory compromise. Case presentation: A 35-year-old male presented with penile pain and urinary obstruction due to the inability to remove the ring. Upon examination, the ring was firmly lodged at the base of the penis, causing significant swelling and discoloration in the distal region. Interventions and outcomes: Initial attempts to cut the ring using standard tools were unsuccessful, leading to the engagement of a rescue team equipped with an air cutter. The cutting procedure, complicated by the ring's thickness and hardness and the significant edema, took ~90 min. Safety measures, including the use of a surgical brain spatula and forceps, were employed to protect the penile skin from damage during the operation. Relevance and impact: This case underscores the necessity for timely intervention in penile strangulation cases and highlights the effectiveness of collaboration with specialized rescue teams equipped with appropriate cutting tools. It also emphasizes the importance of safety considerations when employing nonmedical devices in medical emergencies. The patient experienced a favorable outcome, with significant improvement in swelling and discoloration postprocedure, and no complications during follow-up. This report contributes to the limited but crucial literature on managing penile strangulation, particularly regarding the methods and timeframes for safely removing constricting objects.
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION AND IMPORTANCE: Penile fractures, though rare, demand urgent surgical attention due to their potentially severe consequences. This case report illustrates the significance of prompt and comprehensive imaging with surgical exploration in managing a delayed presentation of a double penile fracture. CASE PRESENTATION: A 27-year-old male sustained a penile injury during sleep, presenting to our department 36 h post-trauma. His clinical symptoms included significant penile swelling, deviation, and the characteristic 'eggplant' deformity. Ultrasonography revealed extensive subcutaneous edema and a substantial hematoma at the penile base, with a disruption in the tunica albuginea. Surgical exploration identified two distinct fractures in the corpora cavernosa, which were successfully repaired. The patient experienced a rapid and complication-free recovery, regaining full erectile function within four days. CLINICAL DISCUSSION: This case underlines the anatomical complexity of penile fractures. Despite the delay in seeking medical attention, the outcome was favorable, challenging the notion that immediate surgery is crucial for avoiding long-term complications. The literature suggests that delayed surgery might not significantly impact long-term outcomes, especially in the absence of urethral involvement, a perspective supported by our case findings. CONCLUSION: Penile fracture requires a nuanced approach to diagnosis and treatment. The case demonstrates that while immediate surgical intervention is ideal, delayed repair can also result in positive outcomes under certain conditions. This report contributes to the growing body of evidence suggesting the potential for re-evaluating current clinical guidelines for penile fracture management.
