Skene’s gland cyst excision
- 713 Downloads
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.
KeywordsSkene’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.
(MP4 62149 kb)
- 1.Wilkinson EJ (1987) Pathology of the vulva and vagina. Churchill Livingstone Inc, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- 3.Dmochowski RR, Ganabathi K, Zimmern PE, Leach G (1994) Benign female periurethral masses. J Urol 152:6Google Scholar
- 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