Publication Cover
Human Fertility
an international, multidisciplinary journal dedicated to furthering research and promoting good practice
Volume 25, 2022 - Issue 2
142
Views
0
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Articles

Going, gonad, gone. Gender inequalities in the management of gonadal torsion: a cohort study

, , , &
Pages 247-255 | Received 17 May 2019, Accepted 27 Jan 2020, Published online: 26 Jun 2020
 

Abstract

Gonadal torsion (when the gonad twists on its ligamentous supports) is a surgical emergency in both men and women. Prompt management is essential to preserve gonadal function. Our aim was to compare the timeliness with which men and women who underwent surgery for suspected gonadal torsion are managed. All adult patients who underwent surgery for suspected gonadal torsion between 1/4/16 and 31/3/18 were reviewed and the following times recorded: symptom onset; hospital presentation; gynaecological/surgical review; decision for theatre; and knife-to-skin (KTS). The surgical procedure(s) and intra-operative findings were also documented. In total, 31 women (mean age 29.4 ± 7.1yrs) and 49 men (mean age 23.2 ± 7.0yrs) were identified. Women waited significantly longer than men at every stage (p < 0.01). Time intervals between hospital presentation and review, review and decision for theatre, and decision and KTS were 1.6 (1.2–2.6 hrs), 0.3 (0.0–0.9 hrs) and 1.7 (1.5–2.5 hrs) for men and 4.3 (3.1–15.3 hrs), 10.3 hrs (2.4–20.7 hrs) and 4.7 (2.3–9.3 hrs) for women, respectively. Torsion was confirmed in 20 (64.5%) women and 25 (51.0%) men. Intraoperatively, 13(65%) ovaries were reportedly necrotic compared to only 6 (24%) testes (p = 0.0076). All necrotic gonads were removed despite conservative surgery being recommended practice during the study period. Women with suspected gonadal torsion received suboptimal care compared to their male counterparts, which has potentially catastrophic consequences for the subsequent fertility of this predominantly young population.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Author contributions

AR conceived and planned the study, assisted with data collection, analyzed the data and wrote the manuscript. JE and JN assisted with data collection and contributed to revision of the manuscript. AB and NEB helped conceive and plan the study and contributed to revision of the manuscript. All authors approved the final version of the manuscript prior to submission.

Reprints and Corporate Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

To request a reprint or corporate permissions for this article, please click on the relevant link below:

Academic Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

Obtain permissions instantly via Rightslink by clicking on the button below:

If you are unable to obtain permissions via Rightslink, please complete and submit this Permissions form. For more information, please visit our Permissions help page.