Prospective observational study evaluates management outcomes and clinical profiles of acute epididymo-orchitis in males, suggesting effective conservative treatment.
INTRODUCTION: Acute epididymo-orchitis (EO) is a common inflammatory condition of the male genitourinary tract and a frequent cause of acute scrotal pain. Understanding its etiopathogenesis, clinical profile, and management outcomes is essential for preventing complications and ensuring optimal recovery. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to evaluate the etiopathogenesis, demographic profile, and management outcomes of acute EO in a tertiary care hospital. METHODS: This prospective observational analytical study was conducted over 30 months at a tertiary care center. Seventy patients aged 18-70 years diagnosed with acute EO were enrolled. Demographic characteristics, risk factors, clinical features, laboratory findings, ultrasonographic findings, management approaches, and short-term outcomes were analyzed using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: The mean age was 37.3 ± 13.03 years, with the highest incidence in the 31-40-year group (32.9%). Scrotal pain and tenderness were present in all patients (100%), followed by fever (87.1%) and swelling (82.9%). Left-sided involvement predominated (60.0%). Common predisposing factors included urinary tract infection (31.4%), obstructed uropathy or prior instrumentation (24.3%), trauma (21.4%), and diabetes mellitus (22.9%). Pyuria (50.0%), leukocytosis (51.4%), and positive urine cultures (38.6%) were frequent, with Escherichia coli being the predominant organism. Doppler ultrasonography confirmed inflammatory changes in all cases, with reactive hydrocele observed in 31.4%. Most patients (87.1%) had no complications. Conservative treatment was effective in 97.1% of cases, with a significant reduction in pain scores within 84 h and near-complete clinical recovery by 4-6 weeks. CONCLUSION: Acute EO predominantly affects young to middle-aged men and responds well to early conservative management.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Nagula et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: