Objective: The pre-op differentiation of tes- ticular tumors from paratesticular masses cannot be made clearly. Generally, radical orchiectomy is performed with pre-diagnosis of testicular tumor and a clinical approach is planned according to the final pathological result.When clinicians diagnose a scrotal mass, they should considered that this mass may be originated from epididymidis, tunica vaginalis, spermatic cord, fat-muscle-connective tissue, and embryonic remnants and should deter- mine the treatment management accordingly.
Material and Methods: The pathology results of 140 patients, who were admitted to our center between 2008 and 2018 presenting scrotal mass and underwent inguinal radical orchiectomy con- sidering as testicular tumor, were retrospectively analyzed. Preoperative and postoperative data, clinical course, and treatment management of the cases reported to be paratesticular mass by pathol- ogy were discussed in the light of the literature.
Results: Paratesticular mass was detected in 13 cases of our retrospectively analyzed series. Of these, 10 patients were found to have adenomatoid tumors 2 patients have rhabdomyosarcoma and 1 patient angiomyxoma.
Conclusion: The differential diagnosis of whether intrascrotal masses are originating from testicular tissues or paratesticular structures is usually cannot be made. Therefore, radical orchi- ectomy is performed in the same way as testicu- lar tumors and a definite diagnosis can be made by pathological examination. The paratesticular masses, 2-3% of the scrotal masses, should be con- sidered in the differential diagnosis. In this regard, there is a need for studies with a higher number of series.
Keywords: Paratesticular mass, Testicular tu- mor, Radical orchiectomy, Rhabdomyosarcoma,
Abstract
Objective: The pre-op differentiation of tes- ticular tumors from paratesticular masses cannot be made clearly. Generally, radical orchiectomy is performed with pre-diagnosis of testicular tumor and a clinical approach is planned according to the final pathological result.When clinicians diagnose a scrotal mass, they should considered that this mass may be originated from epididymidis, tunica vaginalis, spermatic cord, fat-muscle-connective tissue, and embryonic remnants and should deter- mine the treatment management accordingly.
Material and Methods: The pathology results of 140 patients, who were admitted to our center between 2008 and 2018 presenting scrotal mass and underwent inguinal radical orchiectomy con- sidering as testicular tumor, were retrospectively analyzed. Preoperative and postoperative data, clinical course, and treatment management of the cases reported to be paratesticular mass by pathol- ogy were discussed in the light of the literature.
Results: Paratesticular mass was detected in 13 cases of our retrospectively analyzed series. Of these, 10 patients were found to have adenomatoid tumors 2 patients have rhabdomyosarcoma and 1 patient angiomyxoma.
Conclusion: The differential diagnosis of whether intrascrotal masses are originating from testicular tissues or paratesticular structures is usually cannot be made. Therefore, radical orchi- ectomy is performed in the same way as testicu- lar tumors and a definite diagnosis can be made by pathological examination. The paratesticular masses, 2-3% of the scrotal masses, should be con- sidered in the differential diagnosis. In this regard, there is a need for studies with a higher number of series.
Keywords: Paratesticular mass, Testicular tu- mor, Radical orchiectomy, Rhabdomyosarcoma,