Challenges in urogenital tuberculosis

  • Ekaterina KulchavenyaEmail author
  • Denis Kholtobin
  • Sergey Shevchenko
Topic Paper



For better understanding of urogenital tuberculosis (UGTB), its clinical spectrum and characteristic features need to be evaluated.

Materials and methods

One hundred and forty-two cases of UGTB patients were analyzed retrospectively. We considered age, gender, symptoms, and diagnostic procedures.


The total of 142 patients were divided into group A (consisted of 93 patients with only urinary TB), group B (consisted of 13 male patients with generalized UGTB, including urinary TB and male genital TB (MGTB). Group C consisted of 36 patients with MGTB. Sixty patients in groups A and B 56.6% had kidney TB third-to-fourth stages, which are incurable for anti-TB therapy and require surgery. The urinary tract was involved in 48 patients (45.3%): 25 (23.6%) had ureteral TB and 23 (21.7%) had also bladder TB. The most common symptom for kidney TB was flank pain (69.8%) followed by dysuria (47.2%). Perineal pain and dysuria were most common symptoms for prostate TB and were found in 87.5% (14 patients) and 56.3% (9 patients), respectively. Of total, in only 58 UGTB patients (40.8%), the culture for Mycobacterium tuberculosis (Mtb) was positive.


Of 142 patients with UGTB, 106 (74.7%) had kidney TB and 13 (9.2%) of them had kidney TB in combination with MGTB. Only MGTB (prostate, scrotal, or generalized) was diagnosed in 49 (34.5%) patients. The most common symptoms were flank pain and dysuria. Identification of Mtb in UGTB is difficult. Therefore, the most advanced microbiological technology should be used to establish the correct diagnosis.


Urogenital infections Urogenital tuberculosis Kidney tuberculosis Male genital tuberculosis Prostate tuberculosis Mycobacterium tuberculosis Epidemiology of tuberculosis 



Kurt G. Naber assisted revising the manuscript.

Author contributions

EK: project development, data analysis, and manuscript writing. SS: data collection and data analysis. DK: data collection.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This study was approved by Ethical Committee of Novosibirsk Research TB Institute, Novosibirsk, Russian Federation.

Informed consent

As the study was retrospective, informed consent was not required.


  1. 1.
    Global tuberculosis report 2017 (2017) World Health Organization. Accessed 16 Apr 2019
  2. 2.
    Centis R, D’Ambrosio L, Zumla A, Migliori GB (2017) Shifting from tuberculosis control to elimination: where are we? What are the variables and limitations? Is it achievable? Int J Infect Dis 56:30–33. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Toccaceli S, Persico Stella L, Diana M et al (2015) Renal tuberculosis: a case report. G Chir 36(2):76–78Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Figueiredo AA, Lucon AM, Srougi M (2017) Urogenital tuberculosis. Microbiol Spectr. Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Jagodziński J, Zielonka TM, Peplińska K, Życińska K (2018) Tuberculosis of the urogenital tract in adults in a tertiary referral center. Adv Exp Med Biol 1040:29–37. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kulchavenya E, Kim CS, Bulanova O, Zhukova I (2012) Male genital tuberculosis: epidemiology and diagnostic. World J Urol 30(1):15–21. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sallami S, Ghariani R, Hichri A, Zrayer O (2014) Imaging findings of urinary tuberculosis on computerized tomography versus excretory urography: through 46 confirmed cases. Tunis Med 92(12):743–747Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ghaleb K, Afifi M, El-Gohary M (2013) Assessment of diagnostic techniques of urinary tuberculosis. Mediterr J Hematol Infect Dis J 5(1):e2013034. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Choreño Parra JA, Martínez Zúñiga N, Salinas Lara C (2017) Tuberculosis “the great imitator”: false healing and subclinical activity. Indian J Tuberc 64(4):345–348. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Krishnamoorthy S, Gopalakrishnan G, Kekre NS (2017) Genito-urinary tuberculosis—a great mimicker and its atypical manifestations: an interesting case series. Austin J Urol 4(1):1051Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kulchavenya E, Naber K, Bjerklund Johansen TE (2016) Urogenital tuberculosis: classification, diagnosis, and treatment. Eur Urol Suppl 15(4):112–121. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Zellweger JP, Posey DL (2017) Migrant screening for tuberculosis and LTBI in Europe. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis 21(8):835. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    de Daher EF, Silva GB Jr, Barros EJ (2013) Renal tuberculosis in the modern era. Am J Trop Med Hyg 88(1):54–64. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kulchavenya E, Khomyakov V (2006) Male genital tuberculosis in Siberians. World J Urol 24(1):74–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Zajaczkowski T (2012) Genitourinary tuberculosis: historical and basic science review: past and present. Cent Eur J Urol 65(4):182–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Nakane K, Yasuda M, Deguchi T et al (2014) Nationwide survey of urogenital tuberculosis in Japan. Int J Urol 21(11):1171–1177. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Figueiredo AA, Lucon AM, Junior RF, Srougi M (2008) Epidemiology of urogenital tuberculosis worldwide. Int J Urol 15(9):827–832. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Novosibirsk Research TB Institute, Urogenital ClinicNovosibirskRussian Federation
  2. 2.Novosibirsk State Medical University NovosibirskNovosibirskRussian Federation

Personalised recommendations