Cargando…
Right sided spleen laying retro-duodenal: A case report and review of the literature
INTRODUCTION: Unlike left sided accessory spleen that are seen in 10–30% of cases at autopsy, cases of right accessory spleens are extremely rare. This congenital body of healthy splenic tissue simulates tumors from neighboring organs and presents a challenge in formulating a differential diagnosis....
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Elsevier
2016
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4872470/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27179335 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijscr.2016.04.050 |
Sumario: | INTRODUCTION: Unlike left sided accessory spleen that are seen in 10–30% of cases at autopsy, cases of right accessory spleens are extremely rare. This congenital body of healthy splenic tissue simulates tumors from neighboring organs and presents a challenge in formulating a differential diagnosis. PRESENTATION OF CASE: We present the case of a patient whose CT scan of the abdomen showed a large mass, 11 × 8 cm, arising retro-duodenal and lying just anterior to the right kidney. To the best of our knowledge, this is the only case where the accessory spleen was found retro-duodenal, directly anterior to the kidney and completely separate from the supra-renal gland. The chief complaint of the patient was right upper quadrant pain, radiating to the back, and colicky in nature. The patient was diagnosed with duodenal gastro-intestinal stromal tumor and a retro-peritoneal sarcoma. The mass was removed via a Kocher’s incision and immunohistological examination showed that it was a right sided accessory spleen. The patient’s left sided spleen appeared normal. DISCUSSION: Efforts to distinguish an accessory spleen from a retroperitoneal tumor with available scans, percutaneous biopsy or biochemical tests are inconclusive. Differential diagnosis between a retroperitoneal tumor and an accessory spleen can only be made after surgical exploration. CONCLUSION: This case highlights the fact that surgeons should consider the possibility of an accessory spleen when making a differential diagnosis of retroperitoneal tumors. |
---|