International Urogynecology Journal

, Volume 27, Issue 5, pp 817–820 | Cite as

Skene’s gland cyst excision

  • Jeannine Foster
  • Gary Lemack
  • Philippe ZimmernEmail author
IUJ Video


Introduction and hypothesis

We review our experience with long-term outcome after Skene’s gland cyst excision.

Materials and methods

After receiving institutional review board approval, we reviewed a surgical database of all procedures performed by two surgeons at one institution for Skene’s gland cyst excision. Parameters evaluated include presenting symptoms, preoperative evaluation, excision site, perioperative complications, and clinical outcomes. The technique of surgical excision is presented in the accompanying video, and includes cystoscopy, dissection of cyst wall from the floor of the urethra, complete removal of the cyst wall, and primary vaginal-wall closure.


From 2001 to 2013, ten women underwent Skene’s gland cyst excision. Mean follow-up was 3.5 years (range 3–96 months). Presenting symptoms were dyspareunia (4), urinary tract infections (4), vaginal mass (1), and voiding dysfunction (1). Five patients had more than one presenting symptom. To exclude urethral diverticulum, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) was done in all patients and a voiding cystourethrogram in five. No perioperative complications were reported. A distal meatoplasty was done in two women. No recurrence occurred. Eight of ten women who were sexually active remained sexually active postoperatively.


Excision of Skene’s gland cyst is a safe procedure with acceptable long-term functional outcomes.


Skene’s gland cyst Excision Outcome 


Compliance with Ethical standards

Conflicts of interest



Written informed consent was obtained from the patient for publication of this video article and any accompanying images.

Supplementary material


(MP4 62149 kb)


  1. 1.
    Wilkinson EJ (1987) Pathology of the vulva and vagina. Churchill Livingstone Inc, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Miller EV (1984) Skene’s duct cyst. J Urol 131:966PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dmochowski RR, Ganabathi K, Zimmern PE, Leach G (1994) Benign female periurethral masses. J Urol 152:6Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kimbrough HM, Vaughan EE (1977) Skene’s duct cyst in a newborn: case report and review of the literature. J Urol 117:387PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Nickles SW, Burgis JT, Menon S, Bacon JL (2009) Prepubertal Skene’s abscess. J Pediatr Adolesc Gynecol 22:e21–e22CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Das SP (1981) Paraurethral cysts in women. J Urol 126:41PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sharifiaghdas F, Daneshpajooh A, Mirzaei M (2014) Paraurethral cyst in adult women: experience with 85 cases. Urol J 11(5):1896–1899PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Shah SR, Biggs GY, Rosenblum N, Nitti VW (2012) Surgical management of Skene’s gland abscess/infection: a contemporary series. Int Urogynecol J 23:159–164CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Köse O, Aydemir H, Metin O, Budak S, Sonbahar A, Adsan Ö (2013) Experiences with the management of paraurethral cysts in adult women. Cent Eur J Urol 66:477–480Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Eilber KS, Raz S (2003) Benign cystic lesions of the vagina: a literature review. J Urol 170:717–722CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The International Urogynecological Association 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jeannine Foster
    • 1
  • Gary Lemack
    • 1
  • Philippe Zimmern
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.UT Southwestern Medical CenterDallasUSA

Personalised recommendations