The journal of obstetrics and gynaecology research · 2005
Analysis of retroperitoneal tumors operated on in a gynecology clinic.
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.
Kayikcioglu Fulya, Haberal Ali, Caglar Gamze, Koc Sevgi, Gunes Muzeyyen
Аннотация
AIM: To evaluate the patients with retroperitoneal tumors that presented as pelvic mass and were operated on in our gynecology clinic.
METHODS: Records of 16 patients were analyzed retrospectively.
RESULTS: All patients had a palpable mass on physical examination and abdominal pain was the most frequent symptom. The median diameter of the tumors was 15 cm. The postoperative histopathology of the patients was leiomyosarcoma in nine, retroperitoneal fibrosis in three, and paraganglioma, hamartoma, and dermoid cyst in three patients. All the tumors were excised almost completely. The incorrect preoperative diagnosis of the patients in this study is due to the presentation of the patients with non-specific symptoms and not considering the less common differential diagnosis of a pelvic mass.
CONCLUSION: For clinical signs of vascular or rectal displacement, or where there is evidence of ureteric obstruction, retroperitoneal pathology should be kept in mind.
METHODS: Records of 16 patients were analyzed retrospectively.
RESULTS: All patients had a palpable mass on physical examination and abdominal pain was the most frequent symptom. The median diameter of the tumors was 15 cm. The postoperative histopathology of the patients was leiomyosarcoma in nine, retroperitoneal fibrosis in three, and paraganglioma, hamartoma, and dermoid cyst in three patients. All the tumors were excised almost completely. The incorrect preoperative diagnosis of the patients in this study is due to the presentation of the patients with non-specific symptoms and not considering the less common differential diagnosis of a pelvic mass.
CONCLUSION: For clinical signs of vascular or rectal displacement, or where there is evidence of ureteric obstruction, retroperitoneal pathology should be kept in mind.