09 December 2019: Articles
The Practice of ‘Urethral Sounding’ Complicated by Retained Magnetic Beads Within the Bladder and Urethra: Diagnosis and Review of Management
Management of emergency care, Rare disease
Jamie Stephen Lindsay ABCDEF 1*DOI: 10.12659/AJCR.919439
Am J Case Rep 2019; 20:1841-1844
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The emergency treatment of a retained foreign body within the urethra and bladder is an uncommon clinical scenario within adult urology. Beyond the medical field, the placement of an object/s into the urethra is known as ‘urethral sounding’ and encompasses a sexual practice performed to heighten arousal and pleasure. The medical literature highlights the morbidity associated with this practice, most commonly when the sounding device can no longer be retrieved by the participant.
CASE REPORT: A case report involving an 18-year-old male requiring endoscopic retrieval of 60 magnetic metal beads intended for the purpose of urethral sounding. The management was uncomplicated and the patient suffered no long-term complications at follow-up. A brief review of the literature reveals 9 reports since 2013 of magnetic beads retained within the bladder following this autoerotic practice in adults.
CONCLUSIONS: The insertion of multiple small magnetic beads into the urethra is an inadvisable method for use in the practice of urethral sounding due to the lack of non-operative management options. This is due to the high risk of the magnetic beads forming a magnetized cluster once the chain enters the bladder. All cases assessed report successful management with both minimally invasive and open approaches.
Keywords: Foreign Bodies, Urologic Surgical Procedures, Urology, Adolescent, Foreign-Body Migration, Homosexuality, Male, Magnetics, Radiography, Sexual Behavior, Urethra
Background
The emergency treatment of a retained foreign body within the urethra and bladder is an uncommon clinical scenario within adult urology. Foreign body insertion can cause hematuria secondary to urethral trauma and can increase the risk of infection, urethral stricture, and bladder perforation [1–3].
Medically, a ‘sound’ can refer to an instrument that is placed within a narrow passage, often the urethra, for the purpose of exploration and dilatation, and this practice usually occurs under anesthetic. Beyond the field of medicine, however, the act of ‘urethral sounding’ exists as a sexual practice considered to heighten sexual arousal and pleasure. It involves the placing of an object or objects into the urethra via the meatus or the injection of liquid along the canal, and is most commonly performed to the male urethra [1,4,5].
While information remains limited regarding the rate of urethral sounding as a sexual practice among the general population, it is a recognized cause of urological morbidity when the process is complicated by failure of the participant to retrieve their sounding device [6,7]. We describe a case of retained magnetic beads within the bladder and urethra, requiring urological retrieval in an 18-year-old male.
Case Report
A healthy 18-year-old male presented to our Accident+Emergency Department requiring assistance with the removal of 60 magnetic metal beads that he reported were stuck within his bladder and urethra. The patient had lubricated the magnetic beads and placed them one by one through his urethral meatus to form a chain while experimenting with his male partner. This process had taken place that evening in the hours preceding his presentation. He reports that on attempting to remove the spheres, he was unsuccessful due to pain and felt it likely that they had formed a magnetized cluster within his bladder. He denied having engaged in this act before. He was able to pass urine without macroscopic hematuria.
Examination of the abdomen and genitals was unremarkable, with no magnetic beads visualized externally. Analysis of urine revealed pH of 7 with leucocytes, protein, and blood. Observations and blood serum analysis were unremarkable, with normal renal function and inflammatory markers. A radiograph of the penis revealed 60 small magnetic spheres clumped within the bladder, which extended as a chain into the urethra. A post-void bladder scan showed no residual volume of urine within the bladder.
He was reviewed by the urology team on-call and consented for rigid cystoscopic extraction of the foreign bodies under general anesthetic plus open cystostomy if required. The procedure took place the following afternoon. Initial attempts were made to remove the magnetic beads using a 22Fr rigid cystoscope and wire basket forceps, followed by hook-pronged grasping forceps; however, the effort to engage the magnetic spheres was unsuccessful. Successful retrieval was achieved by removing each of the foreign bodies using grasping forceps via a 22-French rigid cystoscope. A 14-French catheter was left
The patient’s catheter was successfully removed the following day and he was discharged with oral antibiotics. Outpatient follow-up took place 12 weeks postoperatively. On review in the clinic, the patient reported normal flow of urine without features suggestive of stricture, and described normal sexual function and ejaculation. He was subsequently discharged to the care of his general practitioner (Figure 1).
Discussion
Sexual stimulation is the most common motivation leading to the clinical presentation of retained urethral or vesical foreign body. This has been established following the assessment of 800 cases of retained urinary foreign body between 1795 and 1999 [5]. The topic has also been addressed by questionnaire to a population of men with genital piercings, and revealed that of the 24% (85/354) that responded, the majority were heterosexual and cited sexual experimentation as their motivation [6]. In the MSM (men who have sex with men) population, the prevalence of urethral sounding is 11% (228/2122) according to a cross-sectional 2012 sexual wellness survey [1].
The former qualitative study involving a population of men with a genital piercing, who were of all sexual orientations, described the use of 32 different sounding devices ranging from chopsticks to electrical wire. The most common object (33/63) was a slender metallic rod which mimics traditional Clutton’s dilators. The study noted a single case (1/63) in which magnetic metal beads were used [6]. More rare and unusual forms of urethral sounds have been documented elsewhere in the literature and include the use triple-A batteries [7] and even a lobster tentacle [8].
Several medical case reports highlight the morbidity associated with this practice, most commonly when the sounding device, where an object has been used, can no longer be retrieved by the participant and requires urological review, often as an emergency. Diagnosis can usually be achieved by a plain radiograph; however, ultrasonography and CT imaging have been used [9,10].
Fourteen cases involving the insertion of magnetic beads into the urethra for the purpose of sexual stimulation have been reported since 2011 [9,11–13,15] (Table 1).
The successful management of retained foreign bodies within the urethra and bladder is often cited to be dependent on the type and number of foreign bodies, with emphasis on the minimally invasive technique of retrieval so to reduce complications [5,16]. Where the item is contained within the distal urethra or is protruding from the urethral meatus, manual manipulation of the foreign body can achieve successful non-operative management [17]. A 2004 review by Rahman of 17 cases involving urethral foreign bodies revealed endoscopic management was successful in 16, with the final case requiring perineal urethrotomy [18]. They reported 2 cases of post-procedure urethral stricture at follow-up. Rafique described 18 cases of intravesical foreign bodies, of which 8 were managed with successful endoscopic retrieval and 8 by open cystostomy, citing their only complications to be related to post-operative infective processes of the wound and urinary tract [3]. Pertaining only to the retrieval of magnetic beads within the bladder and urethra, approaches used reveal that 7 of 12 cases were successfully managed with various methods of endoscopic retrieval, 5 of 12 cases were managed with open cystotomy following failed attempt at endoscopic retrieval, and 1 case was managed first-line with open cystostomy [9,11–13,15]. One case was managed laparoscopically with an extraperitoneal approach to cystostomy and bladder closure following failed endoscopic approach [19]. Of the 7 cases managed successfully with a cystoscopic approach, the most common instrument used to engage the magnetic beads was grasping/biopsy forceps. One case used the cystoscope to advance the magnets proximally into the bladder prior to their removal in order to reduce the risk of potential urethral trauma by the using grasping forceps within the urethra [20]. The most common reason for cystoscopic failure was due to the strength of the magnetized cluster of beads and inability to engage them with the grasping forceps [13,18,21]
Conclusions
The motivation behind urethral foreign body insertion is most commonly sexual in the form of urethral sounding. A wide range of urethral sounds have been described in the literature and the insertion of multiple small magnetic metal beads has been consistently reported since 2012. This is an inadvisable method for use when participating in the practice of urethral sounding due to the high risk of the magnetic beads forming a magnetized cluster once the chain enters the bladder. All cases assessed report successful management with both minimally invasive and open approaches.
References:
1.. Breyer BN, Shindel AW, Recreational urethral sounding is associated with high risk sexual behaviour and sexually transmitted infections: BJU Int, 2012; 110; 720-25, pmid: 22221824
2.. Kwong T, Larner T, A rare and unusual case of urethral bleeding: BMJ Case Rep, 2012; 2012 pii: bcr20126155
3.. Rafique M, Intravesical foreign bodies: Review and current management strategies: Urol J, 2008; 5; 223-31, pmid: 19101894
4.. Unruh BT, Nejad SH, Stern TW, Stern TA, Insertion of foreign bodies (polyembolokoilamania): Underpinnings and management strategies: Prim Care Companion CNS Disord, 2012; 14(1) pii: PCC.11f01192
5.. van Ophoven A, DeKernion JB, Clinical management of foreign bodies of the genitourinary tract: J Urol, 2000; 164; 274-87, pmid: 10893567
6.. Rinard K, Nelius T, Hogan L, Cross-sectional study examining four types of male penile and urethral ‘play’: Urology, 2010; 76; 1326-33, pmid: 20579702
7.. Bedi N, El-Husseiny T, Buchholz N, Masood J, “Putting lead in your pencil”: Self-insertion of an unusual urethral foreign body for sexual gratification: JRSM Short Rep, 2010; 1; 18, pmid: 21103110
8.. Lee JD, Jeng SY, Hsieh DS, Self-introduction of unusual foreign body into the urethra: A case report: Zhonghua Yi Xue Za Zhi (Taipei), 1995; 56; 440-42, pmid: 8851488
9.. Zeng SX, Li HZ, Zhang ZS, Removal of numerous vesical magnetic beads with a self-made magnetic sheath: J Sex Med, 2015; 12; 567-71, pmid: 25471258
10.. Barzilai M, Cohen I, Stein A, Sonographic detection of a foreign body in the urethra and urinary bladder: Urol Int, 2000; 64; 178-80, pmid: 10859554
11.. Graziottin TM, Soares DD, Da Ros CT, Magnetic spheres as foreign body into the bladder: J Sex Med, 2013; 10; 2590-92, pmid: 22612876
12.. Song JB, Tanagho YS, Haseebuddin M, Endoscopic management of genitourinary foreign bodies: Rev Urol, 2013; 15; 84-91, pmid: 24082848
13.. Levine MA, Evans H, Open removal as a first-line treatment of magnetic intravesical foreign bodies: Can Urol Assoc J, 2013; 7; 25-28
14.. Brooks T, Zreick J, Locca A, Urinary obstruction from sexual practice involving magnetized beads inserted in the male urethra: CMAJ, 2013; 185; 1597-98, pmid: 24016795
15.. Pieretti RV, High-strength neodymium magnetic beads: A rare foreign body in the bladder of an adolescent: Urol Case Rep, 2014; 2; 145-46, pmid: 26839795
16.. Stravodimos KG, Koritsiadis G, Koutalellis G, Electrical wire as a foreign body in the male urethra: A case report: J Med Case Rep, 2009; 3; 49, pmid: 19192284
17.. Boyle A, Martinez D, Mennie P, The time-less urologic question, “Now why would you do that?” A case series and literature review of self-inserted urethral foreign bodies: J Clin Urol, 2014; 7; 165-69
18.. Rahman NU, Elliott SP, McAninch J, Self-inflicted male urethral foreign body insertion: Endoscopic management and complications: BJU Int, 2004; 94; 1051-53, pmid: 15541127
19.. Gurpriya K, Sarfraz A, Nabi G, Extraperitoneal laparoscopic removal of magnetic foreign bodies from urinary bladder: An option for endoscopic retrieval failure: Interv Med Appl Sci, 2011; 3(4); 220-22
20.. Liu H, Zhu X, Zhou N, Retrieval of 159 magnetic balls from urinary bladder: A case report and literature review: Urol Case Rep, 2019; 26; 100975, pmid: 31380222
21.. Gibson E, Glaser Z, Joseph D, Dangle P, Previously banned magnets as foreign bodies in the lower urinary system: A single-institution case series and review of the literature: Clin Pediatr (Phila), 2018; 58; 110-13, pmid: 30280581
22.. Tang C, Tsai S, Magnetic beads as intravesical foreign bodies: Journal of Clinical Urology, 2018 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/2051415818802556
23.. Li Y, Gao Y, Jiang S, Rare foreign body in bladder: Medicine, 2019; 97(17); e0519
24.. Hedgepeth R, A Novel Approach to Managing Intravesical Magnetic Beads: Uro Today Int J, 2013; 6(6) art 70
In Press
Case report
Am J Case Rep In Press; DOI: 10.12659/AJCR.949976
Case report
Am J Case Rep In Press; DOI: 10.12659/AJCR.950290
Case report
Am J Case Rep In Press; DOI: 10.12659/AJCR.950607
Case report
Am J Case Rep In Press; DOI: 10.12659/AJCR.950985
Most Viewed Current Articles
07 Dec 2021 : Case report
17,691,734
DOI :10.12659/AJCR.934347
Am J Case Rep 2021; 22:e934347
06 Dec 2021 : Case report
164,491
DOI :10.12659/AJCR.934406
Am J Case Rep 2021; 22:e934406
21 Jun 2024 : Case report
113,090
DOI :10.12659/AJCR.944371
Am J Case Rep 2024; 25:e944371
07 Mar 2024 : Case report
59,175
DOI :10.12659/AJCR.943133
Am J Case Rep 2024; 25:e943133






