(080) Outcomes After Isolated Epididymal Pain
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Introduction Chronic epididymitis imposes significant physical and psychosocial distress on affected patients. Despite being a commonly encountered urologic condition, there remains a paucity of understanding and literature surrounding the management and natural history of isolated epididymal pain. Typically, patients who do not respond to conservative management undergo an epididymectomy. However, the literature on its efficacy is also scarce, with success rates varying widely from 10-90% in existing studies. Objective To better describe the etiology, pathogenesis and natural history of isolated epididymal pain. Furthermore, we aimed to describe the rates of success associated with epididymectomy. Methods A retrospective cohort study was conducted at the Manitoba Men’s Health Clinic, with approved by the University of Manitoba REB. All patients presenting with chronic epididymitis, defined as discomfort or pain localized to the epididymis for at least three months, were identified. Information regarding patient demographics, past medical and surgical history, duration of pain, localization of pain, findings on previous ultrasounds, STI testing results, prior conservative therapies trialed and response rates, as well as response rates to surgical therapy were collected. Results From April 2022 to 2023, a total of 274 patients with chronic orchialgia were identified, and among them, 74 patients specifically presented with chronic isolated epididymal pain. The average duration of symptoms was as follows: 21.6% (n=16) of patients experienced symptoms for 3-6 months, 9.5% (n=7) for 6-12 months, and 63.5% (n=47) for over 12 months. 13.5% (n=10) had associated ejaculatory pain, 8.1% (n=6) had lower urinary tract symptoms, and 4.1% (n=3) had erectile dysfunction. Ultrasound findings were observed in 68.9% of patients, with 31.1% having an epididymal cyst, 27.1% having a varicocele, 5.4% having a spermatocele, and 4.1% having a hydrocele. 49.4% (n=40) did not undergo any intervention prior to referral. After referral, 58.8% (n=43) of patients had undergone antibiotic treatment, 12.2% (n=9) had tried an NSAID, and one patient was referred for pelvic floor physical therapy. Among those who underwent conservative therapy, only 36.2% of patients reported a positive response. Surgical intervention was performed on 23 patients, including 16 who underwent an epididymectomy, three who underwent cord denervation, and two who underwent vasovasostomy and spermatocelectomy each. 81.3% of patients (n=13) who underwent an epididymectomy had a positive response to the surgical intervention, defined as satisfactory improvement of pain, while all patients undergoing other surgical interventions experienced a positive response. Conclusions Chronic epididymal pain is a condition with limited data surrounding its management. Prior to referral, a large proportion of patients did not undergo any conservative treatment, and of those that did, there was limited response rates. For those who underwent surgical intervention, all were pain free on follow up, except three patients who underwent and epididymectomy. Disclosure Any of the authors act as a consultant, employee or shareholder of an industry for: Boston Scientific.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,010 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».