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: A. Nimmonrat, W. Na-ChiangMai, Malai Muttarak
Format: Journal
Published: 2018
Subjects:
Online Access:https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=57149115779&origin=inward
http://cmuir.cmu.ac.th/jspui/handle/6653943832/60577
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Institution: Chiang Mai University
id th-cmuir.6653943832-60577
record_format dspace
spelling th-cmuir.6653943832-605772018-09-10T03:45:37Z Urachal abnormalities: Clinical and imaging features A. Nimmonrat W. Na-ChiangMai Malai Muttarak Medicine 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. 2018-09-10T03:45:37Z 2018-09-10T03:45:37Z 2008-11-01 Journal 00375675 2-s2.0-57149115779 https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=57149115779&origin=inward http://cmuir.cmu.ac.th/jspui/handle/6653943832/60577
institution Chiang Mai University
building Chiang Mai University Library
country Thailand
collection CMU Intellectual Repository
topic Medicine
spellingShingle Medicine
A. Nimmonrat
W. Na-ChiangMai
Malai Muttarak
Urachal abnormalities: Clinical and imaging features
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 Journal
author A. Nimmonrat
W. Na-ChiangMai
Malai Muttarak
author_facet A. Nimmonrat
W. Na-ChiangMai
Malai Muttarak
author_sort A. Nimmonrat
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 2018
url https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=57149115779&origin=inward
http://cmuir.cmu.ac.th/jspui/handle/6653943832/60577
_version_ 1681425461525086208