4.6 Article

Clinical and Radiological Parameters to Discriminate Tuberculous Peritonitis and Peritoneal Carcinomatosis

期刊

DIAGNOSTICS
卷 13, 期 20, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics13203206

关键词

tuberculous peritonitis; abdominal tuberculosis; peritoneal tuberculosis; computed tomography; ascites; malignant ascites; peritoneum; peritoneal carcinomatosis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

It is difficult to differentiate between tuberculous peritonitis and peritoneal carcinomatosis, but the combination of clinical features and radiological findings can provide more accurate diagnostic results.
It is challenging to differentiate between tuberculous peritonitis and peritoneal carcinomatosis due to their insidious nature and intersecting symptoms. Computed tomography (CT) is the modality of choice in evaluating diffuse peritoneal disease. We conducted an ambispective analysis of patients suspected as having tuberculous peritonitis or peritoneal tuberculosis between Jan 2020 to Dec 2021. The study aimed to identify the clinical and radiological features differentiating the two entities. We included 44 cases of tuberculous peritonitis and 45 cases of peritoneal carcinomatosis, with a median age of 31.5 (23.5-40) and 52 (46-61) years, respectively (p <= 0.001). Fever, past history of tuberculosis, and loss of weight were significantly associated with tuberculous peritonitis (p <= 0.001, p = 0.038 and p = 0.001). Pain in the abdomen and history of malignancy were significantly associated with peritoneal carcinomatosis (p = 0.038 and p <= 0.001). Ascites was the most common radiological finding. Loculated ascites, splenomegaly and conglomeration of lymph nodes predicted tuberculous peritonitis significantly (p <= 0.001, p = 0.010, p = 0.038). Focal liver lesion(s) and nodular omental involvement were significantly associated with peritoneal carcinomatosis (p = 0.011, p = 0.029). The use of clinical features in conjunction with radiological findings provide better diagnostic yields because of overlapping imaging findings.

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