MedElevator
Войти в исследования Taehan Yongsang Uihakhoe chi · 2020
Sonographic Appearance of Steatocystoma: An Analysis of 14 Pathologically Confirmed Lesions.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
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.
Yoon Hyeyoung, Kang Yusuhn, Park Hwiryong, Ahn Joong Mo, Lee Eugene, Lee Joon Woo, Kang Heung Sik
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To evaluate the ultrasonographic characteristics of steatocystomas focusing on the features that aid in differentiating them from epidermal inclusion cysts and lipomas.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The ultrasonographic findings of 14 histologically proven steatocystomas in 10 patients were retrospectively reviewed. The following features were assessed: the layer of involvement, shape, margin, echogenicity, posterior acoustic features, and the presence of a visible wall or intralesional striations. The findings were compared with those of subcutaneous lipomas and epidermal inclusion cysts to identify those findings that aid in the differential diagnosis of steatocystomas.
RESULTS: The majority of steatocystomas appeared as a subcutaneous mass (n = 6, 42.9%) or a mass involving both the dermal and subcutaneous layers (n = 6, 42.9%). Steatocystomas exhibited a well-defined smooth margin (n = 12, 85.7%) and homogeneous echogenicity (n = 9, 64.3%), and showed no specific posterior acoustic features (n = 9, 64.3%). The most important features that differentiated steatocystomas from epidermal inclusion cysts were a homogeneous internal echotexture (p = 0.009) and absent or less prominent posterior acoustic enhancement (p < 0.001). The features that distinguished steatocystomas from lipomas were the margin (p < 0.001), echogenicity (p = 0.034), internal echotexture (p = 0.004), and the absence of intralesional striations (p < 0.001).
CONCLUSION: Steatocystomas appeared as well-defined homogeneous masses with mild or absent posterior acoustic enhancement.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The ultrasonographic findings of 14 histologically proven steatocystomas in 10 patients were retrospectively reviewed. The following features were assessed: the layer of involvement, shape, margin, echogenicity, posterior acoustic features, and the presence of a visible wall or intralesional striations. The findings were compared with those of subcutaneous lipomas and epidermal inclusion cysts to identify those findings that aid in the differential diagnosis of steatocystomas.
RESULTS: The majority of steatocystomas appeared as a subcutaneous mass (n = 6, 42.9%) or a mass involving both the dermal and subcutaneous layers (n = 6, 42.9%). Steatocystomas exhibited a well-defined smooth margin (n = 12, 85.7%) and homogeneous echogenicity (n = 9, 64.3%), and showed no specific posterior acoustic features (n = 9, 64.3%). The most important features that differentiated steatocystomas from epidermal inclusion cysts were a homogeneous internal echotexture (p = 0.009) and absent or less prominent posterior acoustic enhancement (p < 0.001). The features that distinguished steatocystomas from lipomas were the margin (p < 0.001), echogenicity (p = 0.034), internal echotexture (p = 0.004), and the absence of intralesional striations (p < 0.001).
CONCLUSION: Steatocystomas appeared as well-defined homogeneous masses with mild or absent posterior acoustic enhancement.