Journal of ultrasound in medicine : official journal of the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine · 2004
Ultrasonographic features of focal xanthogranulomatous pyelonephritis.
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.
Kim Jongchul
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To analyze the ultrasonographic features of focal xanthogranulomatous pyelonephritis.
METHODS: Ultrasonographic features of 15 patients with pathologically proved focal xanthogranulomatous pyelonephritis were retrospectively analyzed by 2 radiologists who reached a consensus, in terms of the location, margin, size, and echo texture of the mass, associated calculi, lymphadenopathy, or local extension, in comparison with computed tomographic and clinical findings.
RESULTS: At ultrasonography, 12 (80%) of 15 masses were well circumscribed. The maximal sizes of the masses ranged from 2.5 to 5.8 (mean, 3.8) cm. Thirteen solid masses (87%) were hyperechoic (n = 7), hypoechoic (n = 4), or isoechoic (n = 4) to the renal cortex, and the preoperative diagnosis was either renal cell carcinoma (n = 11) or Wilms tumor (n = 2). The preoperative diagnosis of the other 2 cystic lesions (13%) was renal abscess. Renal calculi were found in 1 case, but lymphadenopathy or local extension was not depicted. Clinical inflammatory signs were found in 11 of 15 patients.
CONCLUSIONS: There were no specific ultrasonographic features that allow for the distinction between focal xanthogranulomatous pyelonephritis and renal tumors or abscesses. Focal xanthogranulomatous pyelonephritis should be considered when there are clinical signs of infection or inflammation and a focal solid mass is seen on ultrasonography.
METHODS: Ultrasonographic features of 15 patients with pathologically proved focal xanthogranulomatous pyelonephritis were retrospectively analyzed by 2 radiologists who reached a consensus, in terms of the location, margin, size, and echo texture of the mass, associated calculi, lymphadenopathy, or local extension, in comparison with computed tomographic and clinical findings.
RESULTS: At ultrasonography, 12 (80%) of 15 masses were well circumscribed. The maximal sizes of the masses ranged from 2.5 to 5.8 (mean, 3.8) cm. Thirteen solid masses (87%) were hyperechoic (n = 7), hypoechoic (n = 4), or isoechoic (n = 4) to the renal cortex, and the preoperative diagnosis was either renal cell carcinoma (n = 11) or Wilms tumor (n = 2). The preoperative diagnosis of the other 2 cystic lesions (13%) was renal abscess. Renal calculi were found in 1 case, but lymphadenopathy or local extension was not depicted. Clinical inflammatory signs were found in 11 of 15 patients.
CONCLUSIONS: There were no specific ultrasonographic features that allow for the distinction between focal xanthogranulomatous pyelonephritis and renal tumors or abscesses. Focal xanthogranulomatous pyelonephritis should be considered when there are clinical signs of infection or inflammation and a focal solid mass is seen on ultrasonography.