Urachal abnormalities: Clinical and imaging features

Introduction: The clinical manifestation of urachal abnormalities may mimic many intraabdominal or pelvic diseases. We present clinical, imaging and pathological findings of a spectrum of complicated urachal abnormalities and determine whether imaging can be used to differentiate tumour from infecti...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Nimmonrat A., Na-ChiangMai W., Muttarak M.
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: 2014
Online Access:http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-57149115779&partnerID=40&md5=6c10a8b7b2e5a6dc6dbdfa081149f9e9
http://cmuir.cmu.ac.th/handle/6653943832/2349
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Institution: Chiang Mai University
Language: English
id th-cmuir.6653943832-2349
record_format dspace
spelling th-cmuir.6653943832-23492014-08-30T02:00:44Z Urachal abnormalities: Clinical and imaging features Nimmonrat A. Na-ChiangMai W. Muttarak M. Introduction: The clinical manifestation of urachal abnormalities may mimic many intraabdominal or pelvic diseases. We present clinical, imaging and pathological findings of a spectrum of complicated urachal abnormalities and determine whether imaging can be used to differentiate tumour from infection. Methods: From January 1993 to December 2006, seven patients with surgically-proven complicated urachal abnormalities had their clinical, imaging and pathological features reviewed. Results: There were three men and four women, aged 12-73 years. Four patients had infected urachal remnants and three had urachal carcinoma. The main clinical findings in infected urachal remnants were dysuria, abdominal pain and mass. The patients of urachal carcinoma presented with abdominal mass and haematuria. Computed tomography (CT) was performed in all cases, and ultrasonography (US) was performed in four cases. CT in all cases showed a mass located extraperitoneally in the midline just beneath the rectus abdominis muscle and extending from the umbilicus to the dome of the urinary bladder. There were one well-defined cystic mass and six ill-defined solid masses. US showed one cystic mass and three echogenic masses. Cystography was performed in one patient and it showed indentation to the dome of the urinary bladder with mucosal irregularity. The cystic mass and one ill-defined solid mass were pathologically-proven to be xanthogranulomatous inflammation. The other five solid masses were found to be adenocarcinoma in three and chronic non-specific inflammation in two cases. Conclusion: Preoperative diagnosis of urachal abnormalities may be suggested by clinical presentation and imaging features. However, is difficult to differentiate tumour from infection based on imaging features alone. 2014-08-30T02:00:44Z 2014-08-30T02:00:44Z 2008 Article 00375675 19037562 SIMJA http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-57149115779&partnerID=40&md5=6c10a8b7b2e5a6dc6dbdfa081149f9e9 http://cmuir.cmu.ac.th/handle/6653943832/2349 English
institution Chiang Mai University
building Chiang Mai University Library
country Thailand
collection CMU Intellectual Repository
language English
description Introduction: The clinical manifestation of urachal abnormalities may mimic many intraabdominal or pelvic diseases. We present clinical, imaging and pathological findings of a spectrum of complicated urachal abnormalities and determine whether imaging can be used to differentiate tumour from infection. Methods: From January 1993 to December 2006, seven patients with surgically-proven complicated urachal abnormalities had their clinical, imaging and pathological features reviewed. Results: There were three men and four women, aged 12-73 years. Four patients had infected urachal remnants and three had urachal carcinoma. The main clinical findings in infected urachal remnants were dysuria, abdominal pain and mass. The patients of urachal carcinoma presented with abdominal mass and haematuria. Computed tomography (CT) was performed in all cases, and ultrasonography (US) was performed in four cases. CT in all cases showed a mass located extraperitoneally in the midline just beneath the rectus abdominis muscle and extending from the umbilicus to the dome of the urinary bladder. There were one well-defined cystic mass and six ill-defined solid masses. US showed one cystic mass and three echogenic masses. Cystography was performed in one patient and it showed indentation to the dome of the urinary bladder with mucosal irregularity. The cystic mass and one ill-defined solid mass were pathologically-proven to be xanthogranulomatous inflammation. The other five solid masses were found to be adenocarcinoma in three and chronic non-specific inflammation in two cases. Conclusion: Preoperative diagnosis of urachal abnormalities may be suggested by clinical presentation and imaging features. However, is difficult to differentiate tumour from infection based on imaging features alone.
format Article
author Nimmonrat A.
Na-ChiangMai W.
Muttarak M.
spellingShingle Nimmonrat A.
Na-ChiangMai W.
Muttarak M.
Urachal abnormalities: Clinical and imaging features
author_facet Nimmonrat A.
Na-ChiangMai W.
Muttarak M.
author_sort Nimmonrat A.
title Urachal abnormalities: Clinical and imaging features
title_short Urachal abnormalities: Clinical and imaging features
title_full Urachal abnormalities: Clinical and imaging features
title_fullStr Urachal abnormalities: Clinical and imaging features
title_full_unstemmed Urachal abnormalities: Clinical and imaging features
title_sort urachal abnormalities: clinical and imaging features
publishDate 2014
url http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-57149115779&partnerID=40&md5=6c10a8b7b2e5a6dc6dbdfa081149f9e9
http://cmuir.cmu.ac.th/handle/6653943832/2349
_version_ 1681419841958838272