Kumaran A, Yeung PM, Tiwari R. Perinephric urinoma, an unusual upper tract presentation of a lower tract injury following retroperitoneoscopy: A case report. World J Clin Urol 2021; 10(1): 1-6 [DOI: 10.5410/wjcu.v10.i1.1]
Corresponding Author of This Article
Raj Tiwari, FRCS, Consultant, Department of Urology, Sengkang General Hospital, 110 Sengkang E Way, Singapore 544886, Singapore. raj.vikesh.p.k.t@singhealth.com.sg
Research Domain of This Article
Urology & Nephrology
Article-Type of This Article
Case Report
Open-Access Policy of This Article
This article is an open-access article which was selected by an in-house editor and fully peer-reviewed by external reviewers. It is distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
World J Clin Urol. Apr 24, 2021; 10(1): 1-6 Published online Apr 24, 2021. doi: 10.5410/wjcu.v10.i1.1
Perinephric urinoma, an unusual upper tract presentation of a lower tract injury following retroperitoneoscopy: A case report
Arjunan Kumaran, Po Man Yeung, Raj Tiwari
Arjunan Kumaran, Raj Tiwari, Department of Urology, Sengkang General Hospital, Singapore 544886, Singapore
Po Man Yeung, Department of Surgery, Sengkang General Hospital, Singapore 544886, Singapore
Author contributions: Kumaran A drafted the manuscript under the guidance of Tiwari R and Yeung PM; all authors have read and approved the final manuscript.
Informed consent statement: Only de-identified patient specific information was used in this manuscript. Written informed consent is waived by our institutional review board.
Conflict-of-interest statement: The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.
CARE Checklist (2016) statement: The authors have read the CARE Checklist (2016), and the manuscript was prepared and revised according to the CARE Checklist (2016).
Open-Access: This article is an open-access article that was selected by an in-house editor and fully peer-reviewed by external reviewers. It is distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/Licenses/by-nc/4.0/
Corresponding author: Raj Tiwari, FRCS, Consultant, Department of Urology, Sengkang General Hospital, 110 Sengkang E Way, Singapore 544886, Singapore. raj.vikesh.p.k.t@singhealth.com.sg
Received: September 23, 2020 Peer-review started: September 23, 2020 First decision: December 11, 2020 Revised: December 12, 2020 Accepted: April 7, 2021 Article in press: April 7, 2021 Published online: April 24, 2021 Processing time: 203 Days and 8.5 Hours
Abstract
BACKGROUND
A 66-year-old lady was referred to urology for a suspected urinoma after retroperioneoscopy done for debridement of a retroperitoneal abscess that developed following a duodenal perforation.
CASE SUMMARY
Serous contents of the drain sent for fluid creatinine were elevated confirming this and computed tomography urography findings suggested an upper tract injury with urinoma around the kidney. However, the antegrade nephrostogram suggested otherwise and on flexible cystoscopy and cystogram, an extraperitoneal bladder perforation was instead identified, with tip of retroperitoneal drain sitting inside the bladder.
CONCLUSION
This case identifies a limitation in the usual diagnostic approach for such injuries and emphasizes the need to exercise caution when managing them especially when they occur after several surgical procedures and in the presence of multiple surgical drains.
Core Tip: This study reports a 66-year-old lady who was referred to urology for a suspected urine leak after retroperitoneoscopy. This case identifies a limitation in the usual diagnostic approach for such injuries and emphasizes the need to exercise caution when managing them especially when they occur after several surgical procedures and in the presence of multiple surgical drains.
