MedElevator Войти в исследования
← Поиск публикаций

DOI 10.1111/j.1365-4362.1994.tb02861.x

Медицинская библиотека · International journal of dermatology · 1994

Retrolumbar subcutaneous ependymoma and giant bathing-trunk nevocellular nevus.

Bourlond J, Bourlond A, Rousseau C

Клинический случайСтатьяОбзорПеревод пока не подготовлен

Аннотация

BACKGROUND

Subcutaneous ependymomas have been reported rarely in dermatologic reviews and, apparently, were never associated with other cutaneous malformations.

METHODS

A 60-year-old woman with a retrolumbar subcutaneous ependymoma and a giant bathing-trunk nevocellular nevus submitted to thorough dermatologic and neurologic investigation. The surgical material was extensively analyzed with light and electron microscope. The literature was reviewed.

RESULTS

The tumor fits exactly the classical prerequisites of the clinical and pathologic diagnosis. In contrast with the literature, it developed at 53 years, apparently after a trauma, within a congenital giant nevocellular nevus, at the retrolumbar level; it proved unrelated to any spinal cord alteration and so far appeared quite benign.

CONCLUSIONS

The observation of a retrolumbar subcutaneous ependymoma is reported with detail; this tumor exceptionally recognized by dermatologists must be included in the differential diagnosis of lumps arising in the retrolumbar-retrosacral area. The most peculiar feature was its development within a giant bathing-trunk nevocellular nevus; such a fascinating association of two neurectodermal defects, as far as known, is presented for the first time.

Для цитирования: Bourlond J, Bourlond A, Rousseau C. Retrolumbar subcutaneous ependymoma and giant bathing-trunk nevocellular nevus.. International journal of dermatology. 1994. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-4362.1994.tb02861.x.

Предметные рубрики MeSH

Подготовка и перевод публикации
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…

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.

Тип публикации указан по данным источника. Уровень доказательности автоматически не присваивается.