Journal of clinical ultrasound : JCU · 1997
Calculi in hydroceles: sonographic diagnosis and significance.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание 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.
Namjoshi S P
Аннотация
PURPOSE: This paper reviews the sonographic appearances of calculi found in hydroceles.
METHODS: The records and sonograms of 350 patients who had scrotal sonography examinations at Salmaniya Hospital, Bahrain, between September 1992 and August 1994 were analyzed retrospectively.
RESULTS: Seventy-eight hydroceles were identified. Of those, 32 contained calcareous particles or calculi. Calculi 3 mm or more in diameter were seen incidentally as movable echogenic foci in the hydrocele fluid in 15 patients who had projections and calcifications in the tunica vaginalis, skin thickening, and/or chronic epididymitis. These findings indicated that the likely cause of calculus formation was chronic scrotal inflammation leading to a disturbance in reabsorption of hydrocele fluid. During sonography, calculi in hydroceles were seen moving in the fluid between the tunica vaginalis layers; this distinguished them from other scrotal calculi or pathologic findings.
CONCLUSIONS: With sonographic identification of calculi in hydroceles, further imaging and surgery may be avoided.
METHODS: The records and sonograms of 350 patients who had scrotal sonography examinations at Salmaniya Hospital, Bahrain, between September 1992 and August 1994 were analyzed retrospectively.
RESULTS: Seventy-eight hydroceles were identified. Of those, 32 contained calcareous particles or calculi. Calculi 3 mm or more in diameter were seen incidentally as movable echogenic foci in the hydrocele fluid in 15 patients who had projections and calcifications in the tunica vaginalis, skin thickening, and/or chronic epididymitis. These findings indicated that the likely cause of calculus formation was chronic scrotal inflammation leading to a disturbance in reabsorption of hydrocele fluid. During sonography, calculi in hydroceles were seen moving in the fluid between the tunica vaginalis layers; this distinguished them from other scrotal calculi or pathologic findings.
CONCLUSIONS: With sonographic identification of calculi in hydroceles, further imaging and surgery may be avoided.