Is an urachal cist dangerous if it is not infected?
Forget to add background. I'm a 40yr old male who was having mild abdominal pain on my lower right side. A stone was suspected and a CT Scan was ordered. A filling of 3mm was found in the bladder and confirmed by Cystoscopy as a urachal cyst. Only pictures of the cyst were taken during the procedure. I was told no further action is required and the pain is likely not related to the cyst. However I do see there is a very small chance of it being malignant. Similar to a radiologocial test, would a Cystoscopy be able to identify if the cyst is malignant? In general, what is the best of course of action going forward?
No need to remove. Cystoscopy is sufficient.
good day and thank you for being with healthcare magic!
a urachal cyst is a common congenital anomaly where in there is failure for spontaneous closure of the connection between the bladder and the umbilicus.
a small urachal cyst that is not infected does not need to be removed . a cystoscopy would be sufficient to determine whether it would be a cyst that would cause any problems in the future or not. I agree with your urologist that there is no need to touch the cyst and would not benefit you in any way.
I hope I was able to answer your question satisfactorily.