The Journal of urology · 1998
Granulomatous epididymo-orchitis: sonographic features and clinical outcome in brucellosis, tuberculosis and idiopathic granulomatous epididymo-orchitis.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Salmeron I, Ramirez-Escobar M A, Puertas F, Marcos R, Garcia-Marcos F, Sanchez R
Аннотация
PURPOSE: We reviewed and analyzed sonographic findings in granulomatous epididymo-orchitis in an attempt to differentiate this rare inflammatory entity from other causes of enlarged scrotum, such as tumors.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed sonographic features of 9 patients a mean of 41 years old with specific and nonspecific granulomatous epididymo-orchitis, including brucellosis in 7, tuberculosis in 1 and idiopathic granulomatous epididymo-orchitis in 1. Histological confirmation was obtained in 3 cases, and in the remaining 6 positive clinical manifestations and laboratory tests for brucellosis were accepted as the main criteria for the diagnosis of brucellar epididymo-orchitis.
RESULTS: The most notable echographic finding was an enlarged and heterogeneous epididymis, predominantly in the body and tail. Testicular involvement consisted of a diffusely hypoechoic testis or focal intratesticular areas. Thickening of the scrotal wall and tunica albuginea, and moderate hydrocele were also noted occasionally. Followup scans revealed intratesticular abscesses in 3 patients.
CONCLUSIONS: These echographic findings may suggest the diagnosis of granulomatous epididymo-orchitis in the appropriate clinical setting, and help to avoid unnecessary orchiectomy for benign disease.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed sonographic features of 9 patients a mean of 41 years old with specific and nonspecific granulomatous epididymo-orchitis, including brucellosis in 7, tuberculosis in 1 and idiopathic granulomatous epididymo-orchitis in 1. Histological confirmation was obtained in 3 cases, and in the remaining 6 positive clinical manifestations and laboratory tests for brucellosis were accepted as the main criteria for the diagnosis of brucellar epididymo-orchitis.
RESULTS: The most notable echographic finding was an enlarged and heterogeneous epididymis, predominantly in the body and tail. Testicular involvement consisted of a diffusely hypoechoic testis or focal intratesticular areas. Thickening of the scrotal wall and tunica albuginea, and moderate hydrocele were also noted occasionally. Followup scans revealed intratesticular abscesses in 3 patients.
CONCLUSIONS: These echographic findings may suggest the diagnosis of granulomatous epididymo-orchitis in the appropriate clinical setting, and help to avoid unnecessary orchiectomy for benign disease.