Asker Zeki ÖZSOY, Çağlar YILDIZ, Ali ÇETİN, Dinçer SÜMER, Selda BAHÇE

Multiple and large nabothian cysts: A case report

Naboth kistleri sık görülen jinekolojik patolojilerdir ve nadiren klinik önem taşırlar. Uterin serviksin skuamöz epiteli prolifere olur ve endoservikal glandların kolumnar epitelini kaplar, kolumnar epitel mukoid material sekresyonuna devam eder; bu durum, naboth kistlerin gelişmesi için önemli bir faktördür. Transvajinal ultrasonografi ve manyetik rezonans görüntüleme servikal kistik lezyonlar için en kullanışlı görüntüleme yöntemleridir. Genel olarak naboth kistleri herhangi bir tedavi gerektirmezler. Eğer lezyonun yapısı belli değilse ve hasta ağrı nedeniyle acı çekiyorsa cerrahi bir müdahale gerekir. Burada kronik pelvik ağrısı olan ve cerrahi müdahale gerektiren çok sayıda naboth kisti olan bir olguyu sunuyoruz.

Çok sayıda ve büyük nabothian kist: Olgu sunumu

Nabothian cysts are common gynecologic findings and rarely of clinical significance. The squamous epithelium of the uterine cervix proliferates and covers the columnar epithelium of the endocervical glands and the columnar cells continue to secrete mucoid material. This is in important factor for the development of nabothian cysts. Transvaginal ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging are the most useful imaging modalities for cervical cystic lesions. Generally, nabothian cysts do not require any therapy. If the lesion character is not clear and if the patient relief from pain a surgical intervention is needed. Here we report a case with chronic pelvic pain needed surgical intervention because of multiple nabothian cysts.

PDF

___

1. DiSaia PJ, Stafl A. Disorders of the uterine cervix. In: Scott JR, Disaia PJ, Hammond CB, Spellacy WN, eds. Danforth’s Obstetrics and Gynecology. 6th ed. Philadelphia (USA): JB Lippincott Co., 1990; 987-95.
2. Danforth DN, Scott JR. Obstetrics and gynecology. Philadelphia, Pa: Lippincott, 1986.
3. Novak ER, Woodruff JD. Novak’s gynecologic and obstetric pathology with clinical and endocrine relations. 8th ed. Philadelphia: Saunders Co., 1979. 4. Yamashita Y, Takahashi M. Adenoma malignum: MR appearances mimicking nabothian cyst. AJR. 1994; 162:649–50.
5. Clement PB, Young RH. Deep Nabothian cysts of the uterine cervix. Int J Gynecol Pathol 1989; 8:340-8.
6. Yamashita Y, Takahashi M, Katabuchi H, Fukumatsu Y, Miyazaki K, Okamura H. Adenoma malignum: MR appearances mimicking nabothian cysts. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1994; 162:649-50.
7. Doi T, Yamashita Y, Yasunaga T, et al. Adenoma malignum: MR imaging and pathologic study. Radiology 1997; 204:39-42.
8. Mikami Y, Hata S, Fujiwara K, Imajo Y, Kohno I, Manabe T. Florid endocervical glandular hyperplasia with intestinal and pyloric gland metaplasia: worrisome benign mimic of “adenoma malignum.” Gynecol Oncol 1999; 74:504-11.
9. Yoden E, Mikami Y, Fujiwara K, Kohno I, Imajo Y. Florid endocervical glandular hyperplasia with pyloric gland metaplasia: a radiologic pitfall. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2001; 25: 94-7.
10. Sosnovski V, Barenboim R, Cohen HI, Bornstein J. Complex Nabothian cysts: a diagnostic dilemma.Arch Gynecol Obstet 2009; 279: 759-61.
11. Fleischer AC, Entmann SS. Sonographic evaluation of the uterus and related disorders. In: Fleischer AC, Manning Fa, Jeanty P, Romero R, eds. Sonography in obstetrics and gynecology. 5th ed. London: Appleton and Lange, 1996. pp 829-50.
12. Oramoto Y, Tanara YO. MR Imaging of the uterine cervix: imaging-pathologic correlation. Radiographics 2003; 23:425-45.
13. Okamoto Y, Tanaka YO, Nishida H. Pelvic imaging: multicystic uterine cervical lesions. Can magnetic resonance imaging diVerentiate benignamcy from malignancy? Acta Radiol 2004; 45:102-8.
14. Tsuda K, Murakami T, Kurachi H, Ogawa H, Oi H, Miyake A, Narumi Y. MR imaging of cervical carcinoma: comparison among T2-weighted, dynamic, and postcontrast T1-weighted images with histopathological correlation. J Abdom Imaging 1997; 22:103-7.
15. Umesaki N, Nakai Y, Honda K, Kawamura N, Kanaoka Y, Nishimura S. Power Doppler Wndings of adenoma malignum of uterine cervix. Gynecol Obstet Invest 1998; 45: 213-16.
16. Dubinsky TJ, Reed SD. Intracervical sonographic–pathologic correlation. J Ultrasound Med 2003; 22:61-7.