Giant Peritoneal Loose Body in the Pelvic Cavity

We report a case of a large peritoneal loose body diagnosed on computed tomography. The most common causes of a peritoneal loose body are thought to be torsion and separation of the appendices epiploicae. Peritoneal loose bodies are usually small, 0.5 to 2.5 cm in diameter. However, "giant" peritoneal loose bodies, larger than 4 cm in diameter, are an uncommon disease and present with various symptoms, and are difficult to diagnose preoperatively. Especially, abdominal large peritoneal loose bodies are frequently misdiagnosed as tumorous disease preoperatively. In our case, the loose body appeared as a round pelvic mass with central calcifications and a distinct fat plane separating it from adjacent organs. Preoperatively, we suspected a tumorous lesion from the wall of the upper rectum; however, at laparoscopy, a large peritoneal loose body was detected. An extraction of the giant peritoneal loose body was performed laparoscopically.

Analysis of Cytopathology of Fine Needle Aspiration Biopsy of the Thyroid according to Bethesda Classification and Clinical Implication of Atypical Cells of Undetermined Significance / 대한내분비외과학회지

PURPOSE: The frequency of diagnosis of each nodule category under the Bethesda classification was studied, and the differences in the results between cytopathologic and histopathologic analyses of same patients were assessed. Special attention was paid to the atypical cells of undetermined significance (ACUS), which is an intermediate category. The histopathology of ACUS specimens was confirmed to examine the clinical implication. METHODS: Patients (n=417) who underwent thyroid ultrasonography and fine needle aspiration of the thyroid since the application of Bethesda classification (November 2009 to August 2010) in this institution was enrolled in the study. RESULTS: According to the Bethesda criteria, of the 640 nodules there were 56 cases (8.8%) of ACUS, 14 cases (2.2%) of follicular neoplasm, 13 cases (2.0%) were suspicious for malignancy, and 37 cases (5.8%) were positive of malignancy. A total of 102 surgically-excised specimens were obtained, of which 40 specimens were previously categorized cytopathologically as ACUS. Of these 40 specimens, 16 cases (40%) were found to be malignant. CONCLUSION: A precise understanding of each diagnostic category seems to be necessary, which may help with treatment of patients with thyroid mass. This is especially true for ACUS, which was previously understood as an intermediate specimen, but which is actually a heterogeneous mix of benign specimen, benign specimen with various atypia, and malignancy. In case of ACUS, an extensive and accurate diagnostic approach utilizing various examination methods may be beneficial for the patient treatment.