Variations in the urogenital vascular anomalies in the abdomen are very common. However, they warrant attention due to their importance in operative, diagnostic, and endovascular procedures. During routine dissection of abdomen in a male cadaver, unique urogenital vascular anomalies were observed. On the right side, the right renal artery was found to be originated from the abdominal aorta at the level of L2 and divided into five branches; the right testicular artery and inferior suprarenal artery originated from the lower branch. We also observed, accessory renal artery arising from abdominal aorta at the level of L3 and double renal veins on right side. On the left side, we found left renal artery originating from the abdominal aorta at the level of L2 and divided into two branches. Double testicular (medial and lateral) arteries were also observed. In addition to these vascular variations, bilateral kinking of ureter at the pelviureteric junction was also observed. Although the variations in the origin of urogenital vessels in the abdomen are common, deeper understanding of the urogenital vascular variations and their relations to adjacent structures is significant during surgical and radiological procedures.

Background/Aims: Patients of ulcerative colitis (UC) on follow-up are routinely evaluated by sigmoidoscopy. There is no prospective literature to support this practice. We assessed agreement between sigmoidoscopy and colonoscopy prospectively in patients with disease extent beyond the sigmoid colon. Methods: We conducted a prospective observational study at a tertiary care institute for agreement between sigmoidoscopy and colonoscopy. We assessed endoscopic activity using the Mayo Endoscopic Score (MES) and Ulcerative Colitis Endoscopic Index of Severity (UCEIS) and histological activity using the Nancy Index (NI), Robarts Histopathology Index (RHI), and Simplified Geboes Score (SGS). Results: Sigmoidoscopy showed a strong agreement with colonoscopy for MES and UCEIS with a kappa (κ) of 0.96 and 0.94 respectively. The misclassification rate for MES and UCEIS was 3% and 5% respectively. Sigmoidoscopy showed perfect agreement (κ = 1.00) with colonoscopy for assessment of the presence of endoscopic activity in the colon using MES ≥ 1 as activity criteria and strong agreement (κ = 0.93) using MES > 1 as activity criteria. Sigmoidoscopy showed strong agreement with colonoscopy for assessment of the presence of endoscopic activity using UCEIS (κ = 0.92). Strong agreement was observed between sigmoidoscopy and colonoscopy using NI (κ = 0.86), RHI (κ = 1.00), and SGS (κ = 0.92) for the detection of histological activity. The misclassification rate for the detection of histological activity was 2%, 0%, and 1% for NI, RHI, and SGS respectively. Conclusions Sigmoidoscopy showed strong agreement with colonoscopy for endoscopic and histologic disease activity. Sigmoidoscopy is adequate for assessment of disease activity in patients with UC during follow-up evaluation.