Localized tenosynovial giant cell tumor: a rare case of snapping hip.

We report on a 40-year-old male with a 9-month-long history of snapping of his right hip caused by a previously undescribed etiology of internal extra-articular snapping hip, namely due to a localized tenosynovial giant cell tumor. Both dynamic ultrasound evaluation and MRI proved to be crucial in the diagnosis of this rare entity. Auto-provocation of the snapping showed an anterior hip mass moving posteriorly to the psoas tendon which elucidated the pain and clicking sensation. Subsequent MRI demonstrated a peripheral low-intensity rim due to hemosiderin deposition around the synovial mass which is indicative for pigmented villonodular tenosynovitis. Treatment consisted of arthroscopic shaver burr resection. Immediately postoperatively, the snapping sensation could not be provoked anymore by the patient. The purpose of reporting on this case report is to emphasize several successive learning points. First, dynamic ultrasound aids in diagnosis and differentiation of the types of snapping hip. Second, specific MRI features are suggestive of tenosynovial giant cell tumor, recognizing these traits may prevent delayed diagnosis and subsequent aggravated clinical course. Third, localized pigmented villonodular tenosynovitis around the hip may present as an internal extra-articular snapping hip and is of consideration in the differential diagnosis of recurrent snapping hip.

Mucinous cystadenocarcinoma in the renal pelvis: primary or secondary? Case report and literature review.

INTRODUCTION: Cystic lesions in the renal pelvis may cause a diagnostic dilemma. These lesions may be benign or (pre)malignant and primary of secondary. CASE REPORT: A 65-year-old woman presents with a complex cystic mass in the lower pole of the left kidney measuring approximately 16 cm in size and classified as Bosniak type 2F with minimally thickened septa and thick calcifications on non-contrast-enhanced computed tomography. The histopathological findings are consistent with a mucinous cystadenocarcinoma in the renal pelvis. Given the absence of a primary focus and based on clinical and radiological examination, the diagnosis of a primary renal neoplasm is preferred. DISCUSSION: A review of the literature is performed to evaluate the histological differential diagnosis and confirm the diagnosis. Epidemiology with an overview of available similar cases since 2009, as well as etiological factors, treatment and prognosis was reviewed. CONCLUSION: Primary renal mucinous cystadenocarcinoma is an exceedingly rare tumor. Histopathology still remains the gold standard for the diagnosis of this tumor. Because of the rarity, secondary involvement from more common sites, such as ovary and gastrointestinal tract, should be thoroughly excluded.