World journal of gastroenterology · 2007
Abdominal computed tomography in refractory coeliac disease and enteropathy associated T-cell lymphoma.
Клиническое исследованиеСтатьяНазвание 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.
Mallant Maarten, Hadithi Muhammed, Al-Toma Abdul-Baqi, Kater Matthijs, Jacobs Maarten, Manoliu Radu, Mulder Chris, van Waesberghe Jan-Hein
Аннотация
AIM: To evaluate computed tomography (CT) findings, useful to suggest the presence of refractory celiac disease (RCD) and enteropathy associated T cell lymphoma (EATL).
METHODS: Coeliac disease (CD) patients were divided into two groups. Group I: uncomplicated CD (n = 14) and RCD type I (n = 10). Group II: RCD type II (n = 15) and EATL (n = 7).
RESULTS: Both groups showed classic signs of CD on CT. Intussusception was seen in 1 patient in group I vs 5 in group II (P = 0.06). Lymphadenopathy was seen in 5 patients in group II vs no patients in group I (P = 0.01). Increased number of small mesenteric vessels was noted in 20 patients in group I vs 11 in group II (P = 0.02). Eleven patients (50%) in group II had a splenic volume < 122 cm3 vs 4 in group I (14%), 10 patients in group I had a splenic volume > 196 cm3 (66.7%) vs 5 in group II (33.3%) P = 0.028.
CONCLUSION: CT scan is a useful tool in discriminating between CD and (Pre) EATL. RCD II and EATL showed more bowel wall thickening, lymphadenopathy and intussusception, less increase in number of small mesenteric vessels and a smaller splenic volume compared with CD and RCD I.
METHODS: Coeliac disease (CD) patients were divided into two groups. Group I: uncomplicated CD (n = 14) and RCD type I (n = 10). Group II: RCD type II (n = 15) and EATL (n = 7).
RESULTS: Both groups showed classic signs of CD on CT. Intussusception was seen in 1 patient in group I vs 5 in group II (P = 0.06). Lymphadenopathy was seen in 5 patients in group II vs no patients in group I (P = 0.01). Increased number of small mesenteric vessels was noted in 20 patients in group I vs 11 in group II (P = 0.02). Eleven patients (50%) in group II had a splenic volume < 122 cm3 vs 4 in group I (14%), 10 patients in group I had a splenic volume > 196 cm3 (66.7%) vs 5 in group II (33.3%) P = 0.028.
CONCLUSION: CT scan is a useful tool in discriminating between CD and (Pre) EATL. RCD II and EATL showed more bowel wall thickening, lymphadenopathy and intussusception, less increase in number of small mesenteric vessels and a smaller splenic volume compared with CD and RCD I.