Prune-Belly Syndrome

  • Mario MessinaEmail author
  • Francesco Molinaro
  • Rossella Angotti


Prune-belly syndrome is a rare congenital disorder characterized by three major features: deficient abdominal wall musculature, urinary tract anomalies, and bilateral cryptorchidism in males. Incidence is estimated between 1/30,000 and 1/50,000 live births and the 3–5% of known cases are females. The exact pathogenesis of prune-belly syndrome is not clearly known as yet. Three major theories are known, but none of them have universal acceptance because none completely explains the whole constellation of findings in the syndrome. No specific gene defect has been identified for PBS. Many authors tried to formulate classification systems, but the considered classification system to date is by Woodard. The main goal of treatment of patients with prune-belly syndrome is to preserve renal function. The prognosis and the postnatal management of these patients, indeed, are closely related to it. The spectrum of therapeutic possibilities range from a “wait and see” approach to immediate or delayed urologic surgery.


Prune-belly syndrome Pseudoprune syndrome Abdominal wall musculature Bilateral cryptorchidism Urinary tract anomalies 


  1. 1.
    Hudson RG, Skoog SJ. Prune belly syndrome. In: Docimo SG, editor. Clinical pediatric urology. London: Informa Helathcare; 2007. p. 1081–114.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Guvenc M, Guvenc H, Aygun AD, et al. Prune-belly syndrome associated with omphalocele in a female newborn. J Pediatr Surg. 1995;30(6):896–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Caldamone AA, Woodard JR. Prune-belly syndrome. In: Gearhart JP, Rink RC, Mouriqand PDE, editors. Pediatric urology. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders Elsevier; 2010. p. 425–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hoagland MH, Hutchins GM. Obstructive lesions of the lower urinary tract in the prune belly syndrome. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 1987;111:154–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Volmar KE, Nguyen TC, Holcroft CJ, Blakemore KJ, Hutchins GM. Phimosis as a cause of the prune belly syndrome: comparison to a more common pattern of proximal penile urethra obstruction. Virchows Arch. 2003;442:169–72.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Volmar KE, Fritsch MK, Perlman EJ, Hutchins GM. Patterns of congenital lower urinary tract obstructive uropathy: relation to abnormal prostate and bladder development and the prune belly syndrome. Pediatric Dev Pathol. 2001;4:467–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Moerman P, Fryns JP, Goddeeris P, et al. Pathogenesis of the prune-belly syndrome: a functional urethral obstruction caused by prostatic hypoplasia. Pediatrics. 1984;73:470–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Beasley SW, Henay F, Hutson JM. The anterior urethra provides clues to the aetiology of prune belly syndrome. Pediatr Surg Int. 1988;3:169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sellers BB, McNeal R, Smith RV, et al. Congenital megalourethra associated with prune belly syndrome. J Urol. 1796;116:814–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kroovand RL, Al-Ansari RM, Perlmutter AD. Urethral and genital malformations in prune belly syndrome. J Urol. 1982;127:94–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Garlinger P, Ott J. Prune belly syndrome: possible genetic implications. Birth Defects. 1974;10:173–80.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Druschel CM. A descriptive study of prune belly in New York State 1983 to 1989. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 1995;149:70–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Greenfield SP, Rutigliano E, Steinhardt G, et al. Genitourinary tract malformations and maternal cocaine abuse. Urology. 1991;37:455–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Geary DF, MacLusky IB, Churchill BM, et al. A broader spectrum of abnormalities in the prune belly syndrome. J Urol. 1986;135:324–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Woodard JR, Trulock TS. Prune belly syndrome. In: Walsh PC, Retik AB, Vaughan Jr ED, Wein AJ, editors. Campbell’s urology. Philadelphia, PA: WB Saunders; 1996. p. 2159–67.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Woodard JR. Prune Belly syndrome. In: King LR, Kelalis PP, Belman AB, editors. Clinical Pediatric Urology. Philadelphia: WB Saunders; 1985. pp 805–24.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bellah RD, States LJ, Duckett JW. Pseudoprune belly syndrome: imaging, findings and outcome. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1996;167:1389–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Reinberg Y, Shapiro E, Manivel JC. Prune belly syndrome in females: a triad of abdominal musculature deficiency and anomalies of the urinary and genital systems. J Pediatr. 1991;118:395–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Yamamoto H, Nishikawa S, Hayashi T, Sagae S, Kudo R. Antenatal diagnosis of prune belly syndrome at 11 weeks of gestation. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2001;27(1):37–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Cromie WJ. Implications of antenatal ultrasound screening in the incidence of major genitourinary malformations. Semin Pediatr Surg. 2001;10(4):204–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Elder JS. Intrauterine intervention for obstructive uropathy. Kidney. 1990;22:19–24.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Leeners BL, Sauer I, Schefels J, Cotarelo CL, Funk A. Prune-belly syndrome: therapeutic options including in utero placement of a vesicoamniotic shunt. J Clin Ultrasound. 2000;28(9):500–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Makino Y, Kobayashi H, Kyono K, Oshima K, Kawarabayashi T. Clinical results of fetal obstructive uropathy treated by vesicoamniotic shunting. Urology. 2000;55(1):118–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kaplan BS. In utero intervention in prune-belly syndrome. Pediatr Nephrol. 1999;13(2):138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Johnson MP, Bukowski TP, Reitleman C. In utero surgical treatment of fetal obstructive uropathy: a new comprehensive approach to identify appropriate candidates for vesicoamniotic shunt therapy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1994;170:1770–6, discussion 1776–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kramer SA. Current status of fetal intervention for hydronephrosis. J Urol. 1983;130:641–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Duckett JW Jr. Cutaneous vesicostomy in childhood. Urol Clin North Am. 1974;1:485–95.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Hendren WH. Functional restoration of decompensated ureters in children. Am J Surg. 1970;119:477–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Cukier J. Resection of the urethra with the prune belly syndrome. Birth Defects. 1977;13:95–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Kinahan TJ, Churchill BM, McLorie GA, et al. The efficiency of bladder emptying in the prune belly syndrome. J Urol. 1992;148:600–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Passerini-Glazel G, Araguna F, Chiozza L, et al. The P.A.D.U.A. (progressive augmentation by dilating the urethral anterior) procedure for the treatment of severe urethral hypoplasia. J Urol. 1988;140:1247–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Hutson JM, Beasley SW. Aetiology of the prune belly syndrome. Aust Paediatr J. 1987;23:309–10.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Shrom SH, Cromie WJ, Duckett JW. Megalourethra. Urology. 1981;17:152–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Binard JE, Zoedler D. Treatment of hypotonic decompensated urinary bladder. Int Surg. 1968;50:502–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Bukowski TP, Perlmutter AD. Reduction cystoplasty in the prune belly syndrome: a long-term follow-up. J Urol. 1994;152:2113–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Bukowski TP, Smith CA. Monfort abdominoplasty with neoumbilical modification. J Urol. 2000;164:1711–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Monfort G, Guys JM, Bocciardi A, et al. A novel technique for reconstruction of the abdominal wall in prune belly syndrome. J Urol. 1991;146:639–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Parrott TS, Woodard JRR. The Monfort operation for the abdominal wall reconstruction in the prune belly syndrome. J Urol. 1992;148:688–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Ehrlich RM, Lesavoy MA, Fine RN. Total abdominal wall reconstruction in the prune belly syndrome. J Urol. 1986;136:282–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Furness PD III, Cheng EY, Franco I, et al. The prune belly syndrome: a new and simplified technique for abdominal wall reconstruction. J Urol. 1998;160:1195–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Ransley PG, Vordermark JS, Caldamone AA, Bellinger MF. Preliminary ligation of the gonadal vessels prior to orchidopexy for the intra-abdominal testicle: a staged Fowler–Stephens procedure. World J Urol. 1984;2:266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Patil AA, Duffy PG, Woodhouse CRJ, Ransley PG. Long-term outcome of Fowler–Stephens orchiopexy in boys with prune-belly syndrome. J Urol. 2004;171:1666–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Gibbons DM, Cromie WJ, Duckett JW. Management of the abdominal undescended testicle. J Urol. 1979;122:76–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Docimo SG. The results of surgical therapy for cryptorchidism: a literature review and analysis. J Urol. 1995;154:1148–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Fowler R, Stephens FD. The role of testicular vascular anatomy in the salvage of high undescended testes. Aust NZ J Surg. 1959;29:92–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Bloom DA. Two step orchiopexy with pelviscopic clip ligation of the spermatic vessels. J Urol. 1991;145:1030–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Yu TJ, Lai MK, Chen WF, et al. Two stage orchiopexy with laparoscopic clip ligation of the spermatic vessels in prune belly syndrome. J Pediatr Surg. 1995;30:870–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Wacksman J, Dinner M, Staffon RA. Technique of testicular autotransplantation using a microvascular anastomosis. Surg Obstet Gynecol. 1980;150:399–401.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Dreikorn K, Palmtag H, Rohl L. Prune belly syndrome: treatment of terminal renal failure by hemodialysis and renal transplantation. Eur Urol. 1978;3:245–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Reinberg Y, Manivel JC, Fryd P, et al. The outcome of renal transplantation in children with the prune belly syndrome. J Urol. 1989;142:1541–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mario Messina
    • 1
    Email author
  • Francesco Molinaro
    • 1
  • Rossella Angotti
    • 1
  1. 1.Division of Pediatric Surgery, Department of Medical, Surgical and Neurological SciencesUniversity of SienaSienaItaly

Personalised recommendations