49,006
edits
Difference between revisions of "Omentum"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
→Grossing: tweak
(→See also: +link) |
(→Grossing: tweak) |
||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
The '''omentum''' is a much neglected structure. It is often removed in the context of [[gynecologic pathology|gynecologic oncology]] procedure. | The '''omentum''' is a much neglected structure. It is often removed in the context of [[gynecologic pathology|gynecologic oncology]] procedure. | ||
== | ==Normal omentum== | ||
===Microscopic=== | |||
=== | |||
Features: | Features: | ||
*Fibroadipose tissue covered by mesothelium. | *Fibroadipose tissue covered by mesothelium. | ||
===Sign out=== | |||
<pre> | <pre> | ||
OMENTUM, OMENTECOMY: | OMENTUM, OMENTECOMY: | ||
| Line 18: | Line 12: | ||
- NEGATIVE FOR MALIGNANCY. | - NEGATIVE FOR MALIGNANCY. | ||
</pre> | </pre> | ||
==Radiology== | |||
*"Omental cake" refers to a thickened omentum. | |||
**The finding is non-specific - etiologies: | |||
***Metastatic tumours: stomach, ovary and colon. | |||
***Infection: [[tuberculous]] [[peritonitis]].<ref name=pmid12432108>{{cite journal |author=Roche CJ, O'Keeffe DP, Lee WK, Duddalwar VA, Torreggiani WC, Curtis JM |title=Selections from the buffet of food signs in radiology |journal=Radiographics |volume=22 |issue=6 |pages=1369–84 |year=2002 |pmid=12432108 |doi= 10.1148/rg.226025521|url=http://radiographics.rsnajnls.org/cgi/pmidlookup?view=long&pmid=12432108}}</ref> | |||
==Grossing== | ==Grossing== | ||
*There is no widely accepted evidence-based standard; thus, the protocol differs from centre to centre. | *There is no widely accepted evidence-based standard; thus, the protocol differs from centre to centre. | ||
**In the context of a gynecologic malignancy/suspected gynecologic malignancy: | **In the context of a gynecologic malignancy/suspected gynecologic malignancy: | ||
*** | ***It is reasonable to put through six (standard) blocks if there is no gross evidence of disease. | ||
***One study suggests 3-5 blocks is enough if there is no macroscopic disease, and one block enough if there is macroscopic disease.<ref name=pmid17922596>{{Cite journal | last1 = Usubütün | first1 = A. | last2 = Ozseker | first2 = HS. | last3 = Himmetoglu | first3 = C. | last4 = Balci | first4 = S. | last5 = Ayhan | first5 = A. | title = Omentectomy for gynecologic cancer: how much sampling is adequate for microscopic examination? | journal = Arch Pathol Lab Med | volume = 131 | issue = 10 | pages = 1578-81 | month = Oct | year = 2007 | doi = 10.1043/1543-2165(2007)131[1578:OFGCHM]2.0.CO;2 | PMID = 17922596 }}</ref> | ***One study suggests 3-5 blocks is enough if there is no macroscopic disease, and one block enough if there is macroscopic disease.<ref name=pmid17922596>{{Cite journal | last1 = Usubütün | first1 = A. | last2 = Ozseker | first2 = HS. | last3 = Himmetoglu | first3 = C. | last4 = Balci | first4 = S. | last5 = Ayhan | first5 = A. | title = Omentectomy for gynecologic cancer: how much sampling is adequate for microscopic examination? | journal = Arch Pathol Lab Med | volume = 131 | issue = 10 | pages = 1578-81 | month = Oct | year = 2007 | doi = 10.1043/1543-2165(2007)131[1578:OFGCHM]2.0.CO;2 | PMID = 17922596 }}</ref> | ||