4.6 Review

Intussusception due to inflammatory fibroid polyp: A case report and comprehensive literature review

期刊

WORLD JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY
卷 18, 期 40, 页码 5745-5752

出版社

BAISHIDENG PUBLISHING GROUP INC
DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v18.i40.5745

关键词

Intussusception; Inflammatory fibroid polyp; Vanek's tumor; Immunohistochemical stain

向作者/读者索取更多资源

AIM: To give an overview of the literature on intussusception due to inflammatory fibroid polyp (IFP). METHODS: We present a new case of ileal intussusception due to IFP and a literature review of studies published in English language on intussusception due to IFP, accessed via PubMed and Google Scholar data-bases. For the search, the keywords used were: intussusception, IFP, intussusception and IFP, intussusception due to IFP, and IFP presenting as intussusception. The search covered all articles from 1976 to November 2011. RESULTS: We present a 38-year-old woman who was admitted 10 d after experiencing abdominal pain, vomiting, and nausea. Ultrasonography demonstrated small bowel intussusception. An ileal intussusception due to a mass lesion 50 cm proximal to the ileocecal junction was found during laparotomy. Partial ileal resection and anastomosis were performed. A diagnosis of ileal IFP was made based on the immunohistochemical findings. In addition, a total of 56 reports concerning 85 cases of intussusception due to IFP meeting the aforementioned criteria was included in the literature review. The patients were aged 4 to 81 years (mean, 49 +/- 16.2 years); 44 were women (mean, 51.8 +/- 14.3 years) and 41 were men (mean, 46 +/- 17.5 years). According to the location of the IFP, ileal intussusception was found in 63 patients, while 17 had jejunal, three had colonic, and two had ileojejunal intussusception. CONCLUSION: Although IFPs are rare and benign, surgery is the only solution in case of intestinal obstruction. Differential diagnosis should be made via immunohistochemical examination. (C) 2012 Baishideng. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据