An Ileal Duplication in a 12-year-old Girl which was Resected by Laparoscopy-assisted Surgery

Gastrointestinal duplication is a rare congenital anomaly which can occur anywhere along the digestive tract. The most common site is the mesenteric border of the terminal ileum. Intestinal duplication usually becomes symptomatic early in life with the severity of symptoms depending on the location and type of mucosal lining. Ectopic gastric mucosa is an associated possibility. Gastrointestinal hemorrhage is the most serious complication, which can cause severe anemia and shock. Another complication, although rare, is carcinoma in a duplicate cyst. We experienced an unusual case of a 12-years-old girl who presented with intermittent abdominal pain and hematochezia. There was no abnormality on Meckel's scan. Abdominal CT revealed a cystic mass in the pelvic cavity and subsequent transabdominal ultrasound showed the double-layered wall of the duplication. We performed laparoscopy-assisted, segmental resection of the ileum. The patient was discharged without any complication on the 7th postoperative day.

Idiopathic Portal Hypertension

PURPOSE: To discribe the radiologic findings of idiopathic portal hypertension and to find the points of differentiation between idiopathic portal hypertension and liver cirrhosis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Four portogramsin five patients who for four years had suffered from pathologically confirmed idiopathic portal hypertension were retrospectively analyzed and compared with a portogram obtained from a cntrol subject with liver cirrhosis. RESULTS: Portographic findings of idiopathic portal hypertension were paucity of medium-sized portal branches, irregular and obtuse-angled division of peripheral branches, abrupt interruption and an avascular area beneath the liver margin. CONCLUSION: A portogram of idiopathic portal hypertension may be useful in differentiating this andliver cirrhosis.

The Tender Masses in Right Lower Abdomen: Ultrasonographic and CT Features

Perforated appendicitis with an abscess formation is known to be the most common cause of tender mass in right lower abdomen. The differential diagnosis of a tender mass in right lower abdomen, however, is broad and includesvarious intraabdominal and intrapelvic lesions in origin. Preoperative accurate diagnosis is essential in order toavoid unnecessary surgery or complications resulting from delayed surgery. The purpose of this pictorial essay isto illustrate examples of various causes and methods to differentiate them with ultrasonography and CT.

Interobserver Variation in Interpretation of Mammograms: Focused on Findings Suggestive of Malignancy

PURPOSE: To evaluate the inter observer variation in interpretation of the mammographic findings suggesting malignancy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty-two mammograms of proven breast cancer were retrospectively analyzed by5 radiologists based on the 15 findings that suggest malignancy. Using kappa value, the degree of interobserver agreement was calculated. RESULTS: There were fair to excellent interobserver agreements for 5 findings which were clustered microcalcifications(k=0.7642), ductal calcifications (k=0.5463), lobulated mass(k=0.4539), asymmetric breast parenchyma (k=0.4487) and nipple retraction(k=0.4061). The finding in which kappa value was lessthan 0.2 were intramammary lymph node(k=0.1572), duct ectasia(k=0.1453), phleomorphic calcifications(k=0.1309), architectural distortion(k=0.1247) and stellate mass(k=0.0200). CONCLUSION: The most reliable finding suggesting breast cancer was clustered microcalcifications.

Role of Helical CT in Early Gastric Cancer

PURPOSE: To evaluate the value of helical CT in patients with endoscopically and pathologically proven early gastric cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Helical CT scans(5-mm section thickness, 5-mm/sec table speed) were obtained in 45 patients with pathologically proven early gastric cancer. CT findings were retrospectively reviewed by two independent radiologists without surgical or pathologic information. Detection rate, depth of invasion, and lymph node staging were evaluated. RESULTS: The overall detection rate was 52% ; there was no significant difference in the rates between observer A(55%) and B(49%). The detection rate was higher in the anterior bodywall(100%) and antrum(63%) than in the posterior body wall(42%) and antrum(53%). The detection rate of the depressed type(63%) was higher than that of the elevated type(38%). Submucosal stripe was seen in 45% of mucosallesions and in 32% of submucosal lesions, though the stripe was not a reliable indicator for depth of invasion.Lymph node metastasis was detected in only one of eight patients. None was found to have distant metastasis. CONCLUSION: Helical CT is of little help in the evaluation of endoscopically evident early gastric cancer and the routine use of helical CT is not recommended in early gastric cancer.