AIM： To determine the clinical data that might be useful for differentiating benign from malignant gallbladder （GB） polyps by comparing radiological methods, including abdominal ultrasonography （US） and computed ...AIM： To determine the clinical data that might be useful for differentiating benign from malignant gallbladder （GB） polyps by comparing radiological methods, including abdominal ultrasonography （US） and computed tomography （CT） scanning, with postoperative pathology findings. METHODS： Fifty-nine patients underwent laparoscopic cholecystectomy for a GB polyp of around 10 ram. They were divided into two groups, one with cholesterol polyps and the other with non-cholesterol polyps. Clinical features such as gender, age, symptoms, size and number of polyps, the presence of a GB stone, the radiologically measured maximum diameter of the polyp by US and CT scanning, and the measurements of diameter from postoperative pathology were recorded for comparative analysis. RESULTS： Fifteen of the 41 cases with cholesterol polyps （36.6%） were detected with US but not CT scanning, whereas all 18 non-cholesterol polyps were observed using both methods. In the cholesterol polyp group, the maximum measured diameter of the polyp was smaller by CT scan than by US.Consequently, the discrepancy between those two scanning measurements was greater than for the non- cholesterol polyp group. CONCLUSION： The clinical signs indicative of a cholesterol polyp include： （1） a polyp observed by US but not observable by CT scanning, （2） a smaller diameter on the CT scan compared to US, and （3） a discrepancy in its maximum diameter between US and CT measurements. In addition, US and the CT scan had low accuracy in predicting the polyp diameter compared to that determined by postoperative pathology.展开更多
基金Supported by IN-SUNG Foundation for medical research
文摘AIM： To determine the clinical data that might be useful for differentiating benign from malignant gallbladder （GB） polyps by comparing radiological methods, including abdominal ultrasonography （US） and computed tomography （CT） scanning, with postoperative pathology findings. METHODS： Fifty-nine patients underwent laparoscopic cholecystectomy for a GB polyp of around 10 ram. They were divided into two groups, one with cholesterol polyps and the other with non-cholesterol polyps. Clinical features such as gender, age, symptoms, size and number of polyps, the presence of a GB stone, the radiologically measured maximum diameter of the polyp by US and CT scanning, and the measurements of diameter from postoperative pathology were recorded for comparative analysis. RESULTS： Fifteen of the 41 cases with cholesterol polyps （36.6%） were detected with US but not CT scanning, whereas all 18 non-cholesterol polyps were observed using both methods. In the cholesterol polyp group, the maximum measured diameter of the polyp was smaller by CT scan than by US.Consequently, the discrepancy between those two scanning measurements was greater than for the non- cholesterol polyp group. CONCLUSION： The clinical signs indicative of a cholesterol polyp include： （1） a polyp observed by US but not observable by CT scanning, （2） a smaller diameter on the CT scan compared to US, and （3） a discrepancy in its maximum diameter between US and CT measurements. In addition, US and the CT scan had low accuracy in predicting the polyp diameter compared to that determined by postoperative pathology.
