الفهرس 
INTRODUCTIONOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 98 |  |  |
| | | from | 98 | | |
Abstract
Pediatric abdominal cystic masses are classified according to their etiology either congenital, infectious or neoplastic neoplasms, A wide differential diagnoses of abdominal cystic masses are encountered according to the origin either parenchymatous such as the liver, the spleen, the kidneys and the pancreas or non-parenchmatous such as retroperitoneum, the omentum and the mesentery.
Affected patients present with various symptoms and physical findings, depending on size, localization, and mass effect exerted upon the adjacent abdominal structures. however most of the cases of cystic abdominal masses can be incidental findings.
US should be used as the first imaging modality of choice in suspected cystic abdominal masses as it is has many advantages such as it lakes radiation, inexpensive, mostly available, noninvasive and requires no sedation, although it is used as an adjunct to other cross-sectional imaging techniques such as MDCT and MRI because of its limitations.
MDCT is obtained for confirmation and further characterization of focal abdominal cystic masses in pediatric patients, it is also determine the size and extent of the mass and shows extrinsic compression or displacement of surrounding structures taking in consideration adequate optimization of radiation dose and avoiding any hazardous non necessary radiation exposure still with reaching the adequate diagnosis.
The aim was to compare between the role of US and MDCT in the evaluation of pediatric cystic abdominal masses.
The age of the studied 25 patients with clinical suspicion of abdominal cystic masses ranged from 3 up to 16 years.
Both US and CECT were performed using Toshiba us machine and 64 MDCT scanner respectively, and we correlated the results with the available clinical and histopathological data.
We found 5 cases(20%) of hepatobiliary cystic lesions, one was multiple hepatic abscess(multiple echogenic round lesions by US and variable sized non enhancing fluid density lesions by CECT), 3 of them were simple hepatic cyst(well defined non enhancing) and one was type IVa choledocal cyst (intra and extra biliary cystic dilation).
We detected 9 cases (36%) of renal cystic lesions, 3 were renal abscess (thick wall and well defined hypoechoic to isoechoic lesions by US and thick enhancing wall of encapsulated lesion, one of the cases also showed fine internal septations and perinephric fat inflammation by CECT),3 had simple renal cyst (anechoic well defined lesions by us and non- enhancing and fluid density well defined lesions by CECT),3 had ADPCK (multiple anechoic variable sized simple cysts by US and multiple non- enhancing cortical and medullary fluid density well defined lesions by CECT).
We detected 7 cases (28%) having cystic splenic lesions 5 of them had simple splenic cyst (seen by US as hypoechoic well defined cystic lesion and by CECT as non-enhancing well-defined hypodense lesion that has fluid density) and the other 2 had splenic infarction (us showed heterogeneous echotexture and rounded areas of decreased echogenicity and CECT revealed multiple hypodense non-enhancing lesions, with normal intervening enhancing splenic tissue).