Abdominal imaging · 2005
Hepatosplenic brucelloma: clinical presentation and imaging features in six cases.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Ruiz Carazo E, Muñoz Parra F, Jiménez Villares M P, del Mar Castellano García M, Moyano Calvente S L, Medina Benítez A
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: We conducted a retrospective analysis of the clinical presentation and the computed tomographic (CT) and ultrasound (US) findings in six episodes of hepatosplenic brucelloma in five patients.
METHODS: In four episodes, the diagnosis was based on clinical history, serology, and characteristic imaging findings. In the other two episodes in the same patient, the diagnosis was suspected after a biopsy was taken. CT was performed in all six cases and US in five.
RESULTS: On US, brucellomas were iso- or hypoechogenic with the liver. Hyperechogenic masses were seen in one patient. Brucellomas were very poorly defined and contained small scattered cystic areas. All lesions showed central or marginal gross focal calcification, except multiple lesions in one patient. Contrast-enhanced CT showed predominantly solid masses with irregular borders and fine or thick enhancing trabeculations separating hypodense solid areas and/or small cystic areas. Two patients showed transdiaphragmatic lung invasion by brucelloma, a complication not previously published.
CONCLUSION: In regions where brucellosis is endemic, brucelloma should be included in the differential diagnosis if a hepatic or splenic mass with irregular borders and central or marginal gross focal calcification is detected, and contrast-enhanced CT shows enhancing trabeculations that separate hypodense solid areas and/or small liquid collections.
METHODS: In four episodes, the diagnosis was based on clinical history, serology, and characteristic imaging findings. In the other two episodes in the same patient, the diagnosis was suspected after a biopsy was taken. CT was performed in all six cases and US in five.
RESULTS: On US, brucellomas were iso- or hypoechogenic with the liver. Hyperechogenic masses were seen in one patient. Brucellomas were very poorly defined and contained small scattered cystic areas. All lesions showed central or marginal gross focal calcification, except multiple lesions in one patient. Contrast-enhanced CT showed predominantly solid masses with irregular borders and fine or thick enhancing trabeculations separating hypodense solid areas and/or small cystic areas. Two patients showed transdiaphragmatic lung invasion by brucelloma, a complication not previously published.
CONCLUSION: In regions where brucellosis is endemic, brucelloma should be included in the differential diagnosis if a hepatic or splenic mass with irregular borders and central or marginal gross focal calcification is detected, and contrast-enhanced CT shows enhancing trabeculations that separate hypodense solid areas and/or small liquid collections.