|
|
||||||||
Letters to the Editor |
Department of Diagnostic Radiology, University of South Alabama Medical Center, PO Box 16343, Mobile, AL 36616*. e-mail: orotic@scubadiving.com
Joseph Kaminski, MD
Department of Radiology, Medical College of Georgia, Augusta
Editor:
We read with interest the article by Drs Halpern and Gomella in the March 2003 issue of Radiology (1). They report finding postprostatectomy pseudomass of the posterior urinary bladder neck as a normal ultrasonographic (US) finding after radical prostatectomy for cancer in two patients, which was heretofore unreported in the literature. They hypothesize that infolding of redundant mucosa in the area of the bladder neck and vesicourethral anastomosis may explain this phenomenon. Their report also emphasizes the difficulty in distinguishing a pseudomass in the bladder neck from recurrent neoplasm, since cancer is known to recur in this area. These authors rightly suggest that a review of the surgical details, magnetic resonance imaging, and cystography may be useful to make this determination and minimize unnecessary biopsies.
Investigators in another study also involving bladder manipulation reported postprocedure pseudomass (2). After endoscopic repair of 15 ureteroceles in 14 pediatric patients, pseudomass was seen postoperatively at US in five of 15 incised ureteroceles. These authors similarly postulated that redundant uroepithelium resulting from collapse of the ureterocele and bladder mucosa following endoscopic incision promoted pseudomass formation.
Results of these two studies suggest that procedures involving the bladder that produce redundant uroepithelium may result in pseudomass formation. Radiologists need to be familiar with the range of postsurgical appearances of the urinary bladder and related structures to delineate benign pseudomass from cancer occurrence and/or regrowth or other bladder abnormality.
REFERENCES
Department of Radiology, Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Jefferson Prostate Diagnostic Center, 132 South 10th Street, Philadelphia, PA 19107-5244. e-mail: ethan.halpern@jefferson.edu
We thank Drs Summers and Kaminski for their insightful comments, and we hope that this finding will now be recognized by more of those who perform US of the prostate and bladder.
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
B. M. Young, J. G. Fletcher, S. R. Paulsen, F. Booya, C. D. Johnson, K. T. Johnson, Z. Melton, D. Rodysill, and J. Mandrekar Polyp Measurement with CT Colonography: Multiple-Reader, Multiple-Workstation Comparison Am. J. Roentgenol., January 1, 2007; 188(1): 122 - 129. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
P. J. Pickhardt, J. R. Choi, I. Hwang, J. A. Butler, M. L. Puckett, H. A. Hildebrandt, R. K. Wong, P. A. Nugent, P. A. Mysliwiec, and W. R. Schindler Computed Tomographic Virtual Colonoscopy to Screen for Colorectal Neoplasia in Asymptomatic Adults N. Engl. J. Med., December 4, 2003; 349(23): 2191 - 2200. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
| RADIOLOGY | RADIOGRAPHICS | RSNA JOURNALS ONLINE |