Zhonghua er bi yan hou ke za zhi · 2000
[Giant cell reparative granuloma of the skull].
Аннотация на английскомСтатьяНазвание 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.
Liu J, Zhong D, Liu L, Sun C, Han D, Yang W
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the clinical course, histologic feature, diagnosis, differential diagnosis and treatment of giant cell reparative granuloma (GCRG).
METHODS: Three cases of GCRG, which arose in the skull, were collected from 1987 to 1999 and analyzed clinicopathologically.
RESULTS: Two patients had the lesion in the temporal bone and one in the orbit. One patient with GCRG had a recurrence after incomplete surgical resection. Histologically, all of three cases were characterized by fibroblastic proliferation with osteoclast-like giant cell rich areas, hemorrage, and newly formed bone or osteoid trabeculae. GCRG appeared as a typical bony lytic lesion on computed tomography (CT) and as low signal intensity on both T1 and T2 weighted images on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).
CONCLUSION: GCRG is an uncommon nonneoplastic lesion that typically arises in mandible and maxilla and its involvement in skull is rare. Although behaves benignly, GCRG may be locally aggresive. It is usually misdiagnosed for a giant cell tumor (GCT). Diagnosis of GCRG is based on typical histologic features as well as clinical information. Complete surgical resection is believed to be the most suitable treatment for GCRG and long-term follow-up by CT scanning is essential.
METHODS: Three cases of GCRG, which arose in the skull, were collected from 1987 to 1999 and analyzed clinicopathologically.
RESULTS: Two patients had the lesion in the temporal bone and one in the orbit. One patient with GCRG had a recurrence after incomplete surgical resection. Histologically, all of three cases were characterized by fibroblastic proliferation with osteoclast-like giant cell rich areas, hemorrage, and newly formed bone or osteoid trabeculae. GCRG appeared as a typical bony lytic lesion on computed tomography (CT) and as low signal intensity on both T1 and T2 weighted images on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).
CONCLUSION: GCRG is an uncommon nonneoplastic lesion that typically arises in mandible and maxilla and its involvement in skull is rare. Although behaves benignly, GCRG may be locally aggresive. It is usually misdiagnosed for a giant cell tumor (GCT). Diagnosis of GCRG is based on typical histologic features as well as clinical information. Complete surgical resection is believed to be the most suitable treatment for GCRG and long-term follow-up by CT scanning is essential.