Adem YÜKSEL, Murat COŞKUN, HAMDİ TANER TURGUT, MEHMET ÖZYILDIZ, Murat Burç YAZICIOĞLU, Selim YİĞİT YILDIZ

Ultrasonografide Safra Kesesinde Polip Saptanan Hastaların Postoperatif Histopatolojik Bulgularının Analizi

AMAÇ: Safra kesesi polipleri, malignite riski taşıyan lezyonlardır. Bu risk safra kesesi hastalıklarının tanısında en sık kullanılan tetkik olan ultrasonografi(USG) ile net belirlenememektedir. Bu durum klinikte önemli bir sorun olmaya devam etmektedir. Bu çalışmada, preoperatif USG de saptanan polip özelliklerinin histopatolojik inceleme sonrası elde edilen bulgularla uyumluluğunu değerlendirmeyi amaçladık. YÖNTEMLER: Kliniğimizde safra kesesi polipi nedeni ile laparoskopik kolesistektomi uygulanan 55 hasta çalışmaya dahil edildi. Cerrahi, polip boyutu >=10 mm olan veya = 50, eşlik eden safra kesesi taşı, takiplerde polip boyutunda artış saptanan, semptomatik hastalar) eşlik ettiği hastalara ve hasta isteğine bağlı olarak uygulandı. BULGULAR: Hastaların yaş ortalaması 48,6 ± 12,2 (24-83) idi. Preoperatif polip boyutu 6,7±2,9 (2-15) mm idi. Histopatolojik incelemede hiçbir hastada malignite gözlenmedi ve hastaların sadece % 5,4 (3/55) ünde gerçek polip saptandı. Gerçek polip saptanan hastaların tamamında polip boyutu >= 10 mm idi. TARTIŞMA: Safra kesesi poliplerinde cerrahi tedavi kararında dikkate alınması gereken en önemli kriter polip boyutunun >= 10 mm olmasıdır. Risk faktörlerinin eşlik ettiği

Postoperative Histopathology Findingsof Ultrasonographically Diagnosed Gallbladder Polyp

INTRODUCTION: Gallbladder polyps are lesions with risk of malignancy. This risk cannot be determine with ultrasonography (USG) exactly though it is the most commonly used tests in the diagnosis of gallbladder disease. This situation is still a major problem in clinical practice. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the compatibility of characteristics of polyps detected with ultrasonography preoperatively with the histopathological examination findings. METHODS: 55 patients who had a laparoscopic cholecystectomy operation for gallbladder polyps in our clinic, were included in this study. The decision of surgery was given according to polyp size of >=10 mm, or <10 mm but who has risk factors (solitary or sessile polyps, patients aged >= 50 years, accompanying with gallstones or increasing of polyp size during follow-up and symptomatic patients). RESULTS: The mean age of the patients were 48.6 ± 12.2 (2483) years. The preoperative polyps size were 6.7 ± 2.9 mm. Histopathologic examination revealed that no malignancy was observed in any patients and only 5.4% (3/55) of cases had a real polyp. The size of all polyps which were accepted as real polyp, were >= 10 mm DISCUSSION: The most important criteria for surgical treatment decision of gallbladder polyp is the polyp size, must be greater or equal to 10 mm. In patients who has <10 mm polyp, surgical treatment should be advised more selectively to patients who had risk factors

PDF

___

-Myers RP, Shaffer EA, Beck PL. Gallbladder polyps: epidemiology, natural history and management. Can J Gastroenterol. 2002 Mar;16:187-94. Review
Lee KF, Wong J, Li JC, Lai PB. Polypoid lesions of the gallbladder. Am J Surg. 2004 Aug;188:186- 90. Review.
Terzi C, Sökmen S, Seçkin S, Albayrak L, Uğurlu M. Polypoid lesions of the gallbladder: report of 100 cases with special reference to operative indications. Surgery. 2000 Jun;127:622-7. 4- Jİrgensen T, Jensen KH. Polyps in the gallbladder. A prevalence study. Scand J Gastroenterol. 1990 Mar;25:281-6.
Goetze TO, Paolucci V. Adequate extent in radical re-resection of incidental gallbladder carcinoma: analysis of the German Registry. Surg Endosc. 1007/s00464-010-0914-4. Epub 2010 Feb 23. Sep;24:2156-64.
Kozuka S, Tsubone N, Yasui A, Hachisuka K. Relation of adenoma to carcinoma in the gallbladder. Cancer. 1982 Nov 15;50:2226-34.
Aldridge MC, Bismuth H. Gallbladder cancer: the polyp-cancer sequence. Br J Surg. 1990 Apr;77:363-4. Review.
Yang HL, Sun YG, Wang Z. Polypoid lesions of the gallblad- der: diagnosis and indications for surgery. Br J Surg 1992; 79: 227-229.
Berk RN, van der Vegt JH, Lichtenstein JE. The hyperplastic cholecystoses: cholesterolosis and adenomyomatosis. Radiology 1983; 146: 593-601
Akyürek N, Salman B, Irkörücü O, Sare M, Tatlicioğlu E. Ultrasonography in the diagnosis of true gallbladder polyps: the contradiction in the literature. HPB (Oxford). 2005;7:155-8.
Cheon YK, Cho WY, Lee TH, Cho YD, Moon JH, Lee JS, Shim CS. Endoscopic ultrasonography does not differentiate neoplastic from non-neoplastic small gallbladder polyps. World J Gastroenterol. 2009 May 21;15:2361-6.
Mazlum M, Dilek FH, Yener AN, Tokyol C, Aktepe F, Dilek ON. Profile of gallbladder diseases diagnosed at Afyon Kocatepe University: a retrospective study. Turk Patoloji Derg. 2011 Jan;27:23-30.
Kwon W, Jang JY, Lee SE, Hwang DW, Kim SW. Clinicopathologic features of polypoid lesions of the gallbladder and risk factors of gallbladder cancer. J Korean Med Sci. 2009 Jun;24:481-7. doi: 10.3346/jkms.2009.24.3.481. Epub 2009 Jun 12.
Sugiyama M, Xie XY, Atomi Y, Saito M. Differential diagnosis of small polypoid lesions of the gallbladder: the value of endoscopic ultrasonography. Ann Surg. 1999 Apr;229:498-504.
Kimura K, Fujita N, Noda Y, Kobayashi G, Ito K. pedunculated polypoid lesions of the gallbladder by endoscopic ultrasonography: a prospective study. J Gastroenterol. 2001 Sep;36:619-22.
Koh T, Taniguchi H, Kunishima S, Yamagishi H. Possibility of Differential Diagnosis of Small Polypoid Lesions in the Gallbladder Using FDG-PET. Clin Positron Imaging. 2000 Sep;3:213-218.
Deziel DJ, Millikan KW, Economou SG, Doolas A, Ko ST, Airan MC. Complications of laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a national survey of 4,292 hospitals and an analysis of 77,604 cases. Am J Surg. 1993 Jan;165:9-14.
Persley KM. Gallbladder Polyps. Curr Treat Options Gastroenterol. 2005 Apr;8:105-108.
Zielinski MD, Atwell TD, Davis PW, Kendrick ML, Que FG. Comparison of surgically resected polypoid lesions of the gallbladder to their pre-operative ultrasound characteristics. J Gastrointest Surg. 2009 Jan;13:19- 25.