3.9 Review

Delayed oleoma formation with injection of oil-suspended testosterone: A case report and review of pathogenesis

期刊

SAGE OPEN MEDICAL CASE REPORTS
卷 10, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/2050313X221086318

关键词

Surgery; granuloma; oil cyst; foreign body

资金

  1. Northern Ontario School of Medicine

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This case report describes a 51-year-old man who presented with painful and disfiguring submuscular nodules in the deltoids and gluteal regions. Pre-operative investigations revealed multiple heterogeneous non-vascular fluid collections. It was later discovered that the patient had injected testosterone suspended in oil in those areas 9 years prior. Pathology reports confirmed the presence of granulomas containing yellow viscous fluid and areas of calcification, consistent with the diagnosis of oleomas. This case highlights the importance of considering oil injection as a potential cause of subcutaneous nodules and discusses the complications associated with its use by bodybuilders.
This is the case report of a 51-year-old man who was seen in consult with plastic surgery presenting with painful, disfiguring, submuscular nodules in the bilateral deltoids and right gluteal regions. Pre-operative investigations confirmed the presence of multiple heterogeneous, complex non-vascular fluid collections in the subcutaneous and intramuscular layers. The origin of these lesions was unknown until the post-operative follow-up appointment where the patient revealed that he had injected those areas with testosterone suspended in oil 9 years prior. Later, pathology reports confirmed the presence of numerous granulomas containing yellow viscous fluid and focal areas of calcification consistent with the diagnosis of oleomas. This case presents an important differential in the diagnosis of subcutaneous nodules and a review of pathophysiology of granuloma formation, and highlights some of the complications of oil injection use by bodybuilders.

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

3.9
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