RESUMEN
Introduction and importance: Paratesticular liposarcoma (PTL) is a rare condition, with fewer than 200 cases reported worldwide. It is a malignant tumor that originates from fat tissue with high risk of recurrence. Herein, the authors present a contralateral recurrence of a treated PTL. To the best of the authors' knowledge, in the current literature, there are few cases reported with recurrent PTL. Case presentation: The authors report the case of a 62-year-old man who presented with a rapidly growing painless right hemiscrotal swelling. Clinical and radiographic evidence suggested the presence of two paratesticular tumors. The patient underwent a radical orchidectomy with resection of the two tumors through an inguinal approach. The histologic examination revealed a sclerosing, well-differentiated liposarcoma. The decision of the multidisciplinary consultation meeting was not to do adjuvant treatment. A follow-up of 12 months showed recurrence of the contralateral scrotum revealed by an FDG-PET/scan. Clinical discussion: PTL, a rare spermatic cord tumor, affects adults aged 50-60, often presenting with scrotal swelling. Diagnosis involves ultrasound, computed tomography, and magnetic resonance imaging. Surgical intervention, including radical orchiectomy and adjuvant radiotherapy, is common for management, while the role of chemotherapy is inconclusive. High-grade subtypes carry a higher recurrence risk. Conclusion: PTL is often misdiagnosed preoperatively. It is typically managed through radical orchidectomy, which includes wide excision and high ligation to ensure free surgical margins and avoid recurrence. The role of adjuvant therapy remains debatable. Despite a generally favorable prognosis, long-term follow-up is crucial because of the elevated risk of recurrence.
RESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: Strangulation of the penis is a rare situation that requires urgent treatment for penile decompression. The complications could range from simple edema to severe ones such as urethrocutaneous fistula, complete urethral transection, penile gangrene and penile amputation. This work has been reported in line with the SCARE criteria. CASE PRESENTATION: A 9-year-old patient was presented to the emergency service.During examination of the genitals, the glans was hanging to the penis by a very slim pedicle, its coloration was normal and the urethra was almost cut at the sulcus coronarius. The cause of strangulation was multiple hair coils.We performed single stage reparation which consists of refreshing the edges of the urethra and glans, followed by anastomosing the two cut urethral ends, reinforcement by interposing a well vascularized dartos layer was also performed. At the six months follow-up, the penis had a good cosmetic outcome and the glans sensation was present. DISCUSSION: The penile tourniquet syndrome is one of the major causes of pediatric penile trauma. Ritual circumcision is basically the main cause of the series followed by penile strangulation. Surgical reparation can be performed in one or two stages. It should be performed by a surgeons experienced in hypospadias repair by following the same principles of dissection and applying a second layer coverage for the urethroplasty. CONCLUSION: Hair-coil penile strangulation is an uncommon condition. The repair can be realized in one or two stages but it must be performed by a surgeon experienced in hypospadias surgery. Early surgical repair is required to achieve successful results.
RESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: Metastatic tumors to the gallbladder are uncommon. Metastases from renal cell carcinoma (RCC) to the gallbladder are exceptional. Frequencies of less than 0.6% reported in large autopsy reviews and few cases have been reported in the literature. PRESENTATION OF CASE: Herein we present a case of a 50-year-old man that developed four years after radical nephrectomy for RCC, a gallbladder metastasis, discovered incidentally on Computed Tomography (CT) scan. It was described as an intraluminal gallbladder polyp. Radiological features were very suggestive of primary gallbladder carcinoma, thus the patient had a laparoscopic cholecystectomy. The pathological examination of the surgical specimen concluded to a RCC metastasis. Immunochemistry with vimentin and pancytokeratin were supportive of this diagnosis. The clinical course was uneventful after 18 months period of follow up. DISCUSSION: At the time of presentation, almost one-third of the patients with RCC are metastatic. Metastases to the gallbladder are extremely rare. Clinical presentation and physical examination are unspecific. Radiological findings can raise information and orient the diagnosis although the difference between both diagnoses remains difficult. Usually, it is a pedunculated and not associated with gallstones with enhancement on CT scan. The treatment remains surgical with R0 cholecystectomy, and prognosis is mainly related to disease free interval and single site metastasis. CONCLUSION: We highlight here the challenge to make the difference between a primary gallbladder carcinoma and metastasis from RCC. Diagnosis is made on pathological examination and immunochemistry.