Yesterday Pieter finally got an answer from the UMCG hospital. Apparently they're still discussing my case, whatever that may mean. Apparently last week Monday's appointment was as they had expected it to be, which also means that when the UMCG's urologist on that day said that he couldn't think of any further tests to find out what this 'hole' down there is exactly, it probably means just that. It seems like I will need help in the United States more than ever before.
After waiting a mere 10 months, Pieter also received the promised MRI images from the UMCG's radiologist, which he forwarded to me. These images - of regular males - were supposed to show that the kind of 'tube' visible on my images is nothing unusual for a male. Unfortunately I'm not sure whether the radiologist really understood what the matter was about. Let me explain.
The thing is that on my MRI images, there's this black (meaning empty, air-filled) tube visible, running from the top of the bladder down to the bottom of the pelvis, as in this original MRI image from the first German clinic:
Now, the four images I got from the UMCG look like this:
See the difference? No tube, clearly visible and quite massive prostate. On my own images you can see something which might be a small and hard to distinguish prostate, but on the horizontal slides it's very hard to pinpoint as it's so small.
For comparison purposes, two more of my own MRI images from the two other scans (Erasmus MC and OLVG MC):
What is this tube? Why isn't there anything in the male anatomy which would easily explain this? Why can't radiologists agree on what it is either? On the more detailed scans it also seems like this tube's inside is ridged, as would be expected by a vagina, instead of having a smooth wall. It all means that I can not accept these four images as any kind of proof, as they're no different from MRI images I managed to find before via Google, or in reference books for radiologists.
Another thing which makes this so frustrating is that I know that there's something down there, and that it very closely resembles a vagina. Heck, I can not get around using it as part of my sexuality. When masturbating it's a very natural spot to stimulate, and penetrate, with the frustrating part being the skin which is still stretched over it. Sometimes I have to interrupt my activities because the skin there just starts hurting too much, and afterwards it always hurts like hell. How am I supposed to just accept this? Am I to believe that those Dutch radiologists are correct and that this spot is all just in my head and that I just think there's a soft hole there?
As Pieter said a short while ago, they should have done a manual examination, just try to feel what's there underneath the skin while I'm feeling relaxed, possibly even somewhat sexually excited. Yes, embarrassing, but how else is one supposed to examine it? Part of me just wants to get away from this madness, and go to a place where they have more reasonable and interested doctors. Like the US maybe?