Hailey H Choi1, Andrew S Taliaferro2, Lori M Strachowski2, Priyanka Jha2. 1. Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California San Francisco and Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital, 1001 Potrero Ave. Building 5, 1X57, San Francisco, CA, 94110, USA. Hailey.choi@ucsf.edu. 2. Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California San Francisco and Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital, 1001 Potrero Ave. Building 5, 1X57, San Francisco, CA, 94110, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the prevalence of epididymal injuries with scrotal trauma, review imaging appearance, clinical management, and outcomes. METHODS: In this retrospective study, the radiology report database was queried for scrotal ultrasounds containing keywords pertaining to trauma, from 1998 to 2019. Exams with no clinically documented trauma, exams with trauma > 1 year ago, and duplicate exams were excluded. Chart review was conducted for age, trauma mechanism, time interval between trauma and ultrasound, signs of infection, and clinical management. Reports were reviewed to record the presence of scrotal injury, traumatic epididymitis, or epididymal hematoma. Cases with epididymal injury underwent image review. Descriptive statistics, Fisher's exact test, and Mann-Whitney's U test were performed to evaluate for associations between clinical parameters and epididymal injury. RESULTS: Initial search yielded 385 exams. A total of 103 exams met inclusion criteria. Trauma mechanisms included straddle injury (35%), blunt scrotal trauma by ball or other object (29%), assault (28%), penetrating injury (4%), and fall (3%). Sixty-eight patients (66%) had scrotal injury on imaging. Twenty-six (25%) had epididymal injury. Thirteen were isolated to the epididymis, and 13 had associated testicular or extra-testicular findings. There were 12 cases of traumatic epididymitis and 14 epididymal hematomas. All epididymal injuries were managed non-operatively. A total of 7 were prescribed antibiotics, including 1 subject who otherwise had no evidence of infection. CONCLUSION: Epididymal injury is encountered in 25% of scrotal ultrasounds for trauma evaluation. Traumatic epididymitis can be seen in 12%. It is important for radiologists to recognize this entity, as it can be mistaken for infection.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the prevalence of epididymal injuries with scrotal trauma, review imaging appearance, clinical management, and outcomes. METHODS: In this retrospective study, the radiology report database was queried for scrotal ultrasounds containing keywords pertaining to trauma, from 1998 to 2019. Exams with no clinically documented trauma, exams with trauma > 1 year ago, and duplicate exams were excluded. Chart review was conducted for age, trauma mechanism, time interval between trauma and ultrasound, signs of infection, and clinical management. Reports were reviewed to record the presence of scrotal injury, traumatic epididymitis, or epididymal hematoma. Cases with epididymal injury underwent image review. Descriptive statistics, Fisher's exact test, and Mann-Whitney's U test were performed to evaluate for associations between clinical parameters and epididymal injury. RESULTS: Initial search yielded 385 exams. A total of 103 exams met inclusion criteria. Trauma mechanisms included straddle injury (35%), blunt scrotal trauma by ball or other object (29%), assault (28%), penetrating injury (4%), and fall (3%). Sixty-eight patients (66%) had scrotal injury on imaging. Twenty-six (25%) had epididymal injury. Thirteen were isolated to the epididymis, and 13 had associated testicular or extra-testicular findings. There were 12 cases of traumatic epididymitis and 14 epididymal hematomas. All epididymal injuries were managed non-operatively. A total of 7 were prescribed antibiotics, including 1 subject who otherwise had no evidence of infection. CONCLUSION:Epididymal injury is encountered in 25% of scrotal ultrasounds for trauma evaluation. Traumatic epididymitis can be seen in 12%. It is important for radiologists to recognize this entity, as it can be mistaken for infection.
Authors: Gauthami R Churukanti; Andrew Kim; David D Rich; Kyle G Schuyler; Garjae D Lavien; Deborah M Stein; M Minhaj Siddiqui Journal: Urology Date: 2016-04-28 Impact factor: 2.649