In the ultrasonographic examination, the wall thickness was increased in 40 patients in Group 1 and 662 patients in Group 2 (p
📌 3 Key Takeaways
🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objective: In this study, we aimed to compare development of complications, malignancy and confusion rates in the preliminary diagnosis in patients with xanthogranulomatous cholecystitis identified.Methods: In this study, 2803 patients undergone cholecystectomy between January 2010 and December 2016 were retrospectively evaluated.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Patients with xanthogranulomatous cholecystitis identified in the histopathological examination were classified as Group 1 and patients with cholelithiasis, cholecystitis, and malignancy detected were classified as Group 2.Results: Forty-five patients with xanthogranulomatous cholecystitis were classified as group 1 and 2758 patients as group 2. of group 1, 18 were male and group 2 consisted of 2758 patients with 707 (26%) being male (p=0.04).
💡
Conclusion & Impact:In the ultrasonographic examination, the wall thickness was increased in 40 patients in Group 1 and 662 patients in Group 2 (p
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2010 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters
Abstract
Objective: In this study, we aimed to compare development of complications, malignancy and confusion rates in the preliminary diagnosis in patients with xanthogranulomatous cholecystitis identified.Methods: In this study, 2803 patients undergone cholecystectomy between January 2010 and December 2016 were retrospectively evaluated. Patients with xanthogranulomatous cholecystitis identified in the histopathological examination were classified as Group 1 and patients with cholelithiasis, cholecystitis, and malignancy detected were classified as Group 2.Results: Forty-five patients with xanthogranulomatous cholecystitis were classified as group 1 and 2758 patients as group 2. of group 1, 18 were male and group 2 consisted of 2758 patients with 707 (26%) being male (p=0.04). In the ultrasonographic examination, the wall thickness was increased in 40 patients in Group 1 and 662 patients in Group 2 (p
🔖
Cite This Article
CANBAK, T., ACAR, A., TOLAN, H. K. (2022). What should be done in patients diagnosed with xanthogranulomatous cholecystitis? Case-control study. İstanbul Kuzey Klinikleri, Cilt: 7 - Sayı: 5, 467–470. https://ajindex.com/articles/551345
Rajaguru K, Mehrotra S, Lalwani S, Mangla V, Mehta N, Nundy S. New scoring system for differentiating xanthogranulomatous cholecystitis from gall bladder carcinoma: a tertiary care centre experience. ANZ J Surg 2018;88:E34–9
Guzmán-Valdivia G. Xanthogranulomatous cholecystitis in laparoscopic surgery. J Gastrointest Surg 2005;9:494–7
Yuan HX, Wang WP, Wen JX, Ji ZB, Ding H, Huang BJ, et al. Xanthogranulomatous cholecystitis: contrast-enhanced ultrasound features and differential diagnosis from wall-thickening gallbladder carcinoma. Discov Med 2016;21:89–98
Houston JP, Collins MC, Cameron I, Reed MW, Parsons MA, Roberts KM. Xanthogranulomatous cholecystitis. Br J Surg 1994;81:1030–2
Cárdenas-Lailson LE, Torres-Gómez B, Medina-Sánchez S, Mijares- García JM, Hernández-Calleros J. Epidemiology of xanthogranulomatous cholecystitis. [Article in Spanish]. Cir Cir 2005;73:19–23
Guzmán-Valdivia G. Xanthogranulomatous cholecystitis: 15 years’ experience. World J Surg 2004;28:254–7
Lee KC, Yamazaki O, Horii K, Hamba H, Higaki I, Hirata S, et al. Mirizzi syndrome caused by xanthogranulomatous cholecystitis: report of a case. Surg Today 1997;27:757–61
Pinocy J, Lange A, König C, Kaiserling E, Becker HD, Kröber SM. Xanthogranulomatous cholecystitis resembling carcinoma with extensive tumorous infiltration of the liver and colon. Langenbecks Arch Surg 2003;388:48–51
Hsu C, Hurwitz JL, Schuss A, Katz DS. Radiology-Pathology Conference: Xanthogranulomatous cholecystitis. Clin Imaging 2003;27:421– 5
Krishnani N, Dhingra S, Kapoor S, Pandey R. Cytopathologic diagnosis of xanthogranulomatous cholecystitis and coexistent lesions. A prospective study of 31 cases. Acta Cytol 2007;51:37–41.