Brusella epididymoorchitis: a retrospective evaluation of 22 cases

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate retrospectively the clinical symptoms, laboratory findings, complications and treatment outcomes of patients with Brucellar epididymo-orchitis (BEO). 

Material and method: Between January 2012 and January 2017, 110 cases followed up with epididymoorchitis in our clinic were evaluated retrospectively. Of these, 22 were brusella epididymoorchitis. Positive clinical findings such as testicular pain, tenderness and scrotal swelling, positive Rose Bengal test results, ≥1 / 160 standard tube agglutination test titers or positive blood culture and ultrasonographic findings of orchitis were accepted as the main criteria for BEO diagnosis. 

Results: The mean patient age was 34.6 ± 17.8 years. BEO was one-sided in all patients. In 15 patients (68.2%) left, 7 patients (31.8%) had right-sided testicular involvement. Testicular pain and swelling were the most common symptoms. Sweating, fever, fatigue and anorexia were seen less frequently. The most common laboratory findings were increased ESR and CRP, 57.1% and 47.4%, respectively. Rose Bengal test positivity and ≥1 / 160 STA test titers were determined in all patients. Blood culture was positive for Brucella spp in 1 of 5 patients (20%). Since relapsing and the malignancy differential diagnosis can not be performed completely, in a patient radical orchiectomy was performed. All but 3 of 22 patients with BEO were successfully treated with rifampicin- doxycycline, or streptomycin-doxycycline combined antibiotic therapy. The overall medical care response rate was 86.3% in patients with correct pre-diagnosis. 

Conclusion: Brucellosis is a common cause of epididymo-orchitis in endemic areas. Early diagnosis and appropriate medical treatment in BEO prevent the development of complications such as abscess formation. For this reason, BEO should be considered as the cause of epididymorhosis in endemic regions and should be included in differential diagnosis in non-endemic regions. 

Keywords

• Brucella,epididymo-orchitis,medical treatment,orchiectomy

Brusella epididimo-orsit: 22 olgunun retrospektif değerlendirilmesi

Abstract

Amaç: Brusella epididimo-orsitli (BEO) hastaların klinik semptomları, laboratuvar bulguları, komplikasyonları ve tedavi sonuçlarını retrospektif olarak değerlendirmek. 

Materyal ve metod: Ocak 2012 - Ocak 2017 tarihleri arasında, kliniğimizde epididimo-orsit tanısı ile takip edilen 110 olgu retrospektif olarak değerlendirildi. Bu olgulardan 22’si brusella epididimo-orsiti idi. Testiküler ağrı, hassasiyet ve skrotal şişme gibi pozitif klinik tablo, pozitif Rose Bengal test sonuçları, ≥1/ 160 standart tüp aglütinasyon (STA) testi titre değerleri veya pozitif kan kültürü ve orşitin ultrasonografik bulguları, BEO tanısının ana kriteri olarak kabul edildi. 

Bulgular: Ortalama hasta yaşı 34.6±17.8 idi. BEO tüm hastalarda tek taraflıydı. 15 hastada (%68.2) sol, 7 hastada (%31.8) sağ taraf testis tutulumu görüldü. Testiküler ağrı ve şişme en yaygın semptomlardı. Terleme, ateş, yorgunluk ve anoreksiya daha az sıklıkta görüldü. En sık rastlanan laboratuvar bulgusu ESR ve CRP yükselmesiydi, sırasıyla %57.1, %47.4. Tüm hastalarda Rose Bengal test pozitifliği ve ≥1/ 160 STA testi titre değerleri tespit edildi. Kan kültürü 5 hastanın 1’inde (%20) Brucella türü için pozitifti. Relaps olması ve malignite ayırıcı tanısı tam olarak yapılamadığından bir hastaya radikal orşiektomi yapıldı. BEO’lu 22 hastanın 3’ü hariç tamamı rifampisin-doksisiklin veya streptomisin-doksisiklin kombine antibiyotik tedavisi ile başarılı bir şekilde tedavi edildi. Doğru ön tanılı hastalarda genel olarak medikal tedaviye yanıt oranı % 86.3 oranında bulundu. 

Sonuç: Bruselloz, endemik bölgelerde epididimo-orşitin yaygın bir nedenidir. BEO’da erken teşhis ve uygun tıbbi tedavi, apse oluşumu gibi komplikasyonların gelişimini engellemektedir. Bu nedenle BEO, endemik bölgelerde epididimiorşit nedeni olarak düşünülmeli ve nonendemik bölgelerde de mutlaka ayırıcı tanıda yer almalıdır. 

Keywords

• brusella,epididimo-orsit,medikal tedavi,orşiektomi

References

1. 1. Colmenero JD, Munoz-Roca NL, Bermudez P, et al. Clinical findings, diagnostic approach, and outcome of Brucella melitensis epididymo-orchitis. Diagnostic microbiology and infectious disease 2007;57(4):367-372.
2. 2. Kanik-Yuksek S, Gulhan B, Ozkaya-Parlakay A, Tezer H. A case of childhood Brucellosis with neurological involvement and epididymo-orchitis. The Journal of Infection in Developing Countries 2014;8(12):1636-1638.
3. 3. Togan T, Çiftci O, Turan H, et al. Could there be an association between chronic brucellosis and endothelial damage? The Journal of Infection in Developing Countries 2015; 9:48-54.
4. 4.Colmenero JD, Reguera J, Martos F, et al. Complications associated with Brucella melitensis infection: a study of 530 cases. Medicine 1996;75:195-211.
5. 5. Young EJ. Brucella species. In: Mandell GL, Bennett JE, Dolin R, editors. Principles and Practice of Infectious Disaeses, 6th ed. Philadelphia, Churchill Livingstone: 2005. p. 2669-2672.
6. 6. Doğanay M, Meşe Alp E. Infeksiyon hastalıkları ve mikrobiyolojisi. Istanbul: Nobel Tıp Kitabevleri 2008.
7. 7. Roushan MH, Mohrez M, Gangi SS, Amiri MS, Hajiahmadi M. Epidemiological features and clinical manifestations in 469 adult patients with brucellosis in Babol, Northern Iran. Epidemiology & Infection 2004;132:1109-1114.
8. 8. Yurdakul T, Sert U, Acar A, Karalezli G, Akcetin Z. Epididymoorchitis as a complication of brucellosis. Urol Int 1995;55:141-142.

9. 9. Erdem H, Elaldi N, Ak O, et al. Genitourinary brucellosis: results of a multicentric study. Clinical Microbiology and Infection 2014; 20: 847-853.
10. 10. Yumuk Z, O’Callaghan D. Brucellosis in Turkey an overview. Int J Infect Dis 2012;16:228-35.
11. 11. Güneş M, Gecit I, Bilici S, et al. Brucellar epididymo-orchitis: report of fifteen cases. Van Medical Journal 2010;17: 131-135.
12. 12. Demiroglu YZ, Turunc T, Alıskan H, Colakoglu S, Arslan H. Bruselloz: 151 olgunun klinik, laboratuvar ve epidemiyolojik ozelliklerinin retrospektif degerlendirilmesi. Mikrobiyol Bul 2007;41:517-27.
13. 13. Savasci U, Zor M, Karakas A, et al. Brucellar epididymoorchitis: a retrospective multicenter study of 28 cases and review of the literature. Travel medicine and infectious disease 2014; 12: 667-672.
14. 14. Navarro-Martïnez A, Solera J, Corredoira J, et al. Epididymoorchitis due to Brucella mellitensis: a retrospective study of 59 patients. Clinical infectious diseases 001;33:2017- 2022.
15. 15. Memish ZA, Venkatesh S. Brucellar epididymo‐orchitis in Saudi Arabia: a retrospective study of 26 cases and review of the literature. BJU international 2001;88:72-76.
16. 16. Afşar H, Baydar I, Sirmatel F. Epididymo‐orchitis due to Brucellosis. BJU International 1993;72: 104-105.
17. 17. Khan MY. Brucellosis-observations on 100 patients. Annals of Saudi medicine 1986; 6:19-23.
18. 18. Khan MS, Humayoon MS, Manee MS. Epididymo‐orchitis and Brucellosis. BJU International 1989;63: 87-89.
19. 19. Crosby E, Llosa L, Quesada MM, Carrillo PC, Gotuzzo E. Hematologic changes in brucellosis. Journal of Infectious Diseases 1984;150: 419-424.
20. 20. Queipo-Ortuño MI, Colmenero JD, Baeza G, Morata P. Comparison between LightCycler Real-Time Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) assay with serum and PCR–enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay with whole blood samples for the diagnosis of human brucellosis. Clinical infectious diseases 2005; 40:260-264.
21. 21. Tackett RE, Ling D, Catalona WJ, Melson GL. High resolution sonography in diagnosing testicular neoplasms: clinical significance of false positive scans. The Journal of Urology 1986;135:494-496.
22. 22. Corbel MJ. Brucellosis in humans and animals. World Health Organization 2006.
23. 23. Ariza Cardenal J, Bosilkowski M, Cascio A et al. Perspectives for the treatment of brucellosis in the 21st century: the Ioannina recommendations. PLoS Medicine 2007;4:1872-1878.