Toro-Wills MF, Redondo-Rada AP, Rodríguez-Siachoque M

Language: Spanish
References: 8
Page: 606-611
PDF size: 298.76 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Background: An adnexal mass is a prominence of location close to, or related to, the female reproductive organs and their surrounding tissues. In clinical practice, adnexal masses represent a diagnostic and treatment dilemma. Diagnosis is usually fortuitous, following a finding on gynecological examination or imaging studies.
Clinical case: 29-year-old patient, with a history of three pregnancies, two deliveries and one miscarriage, with no associated comorbidities. The last delivery was recorded in January 2021. She came for consultation due to a picture of pain in the lower abdomen, colic type, of progressive intensity 7/10 on the visual analog scale, radiating to the lumbar area, associated with emetic episodes, without any other symptoms, of one week of evolution. On admission to the emergency department, her general condition was considered acceptable: hydrated, energetic, without no cardiac or pulmonary alterations, without neurological involvement or lymphadenopathies.
Conclusions: It is important to individualize each case, determine the ultrasound characteristics and carry out a stepwise treatment according to the clinical response of the patients. The literature and this report prove the usefulness of the new indexes proposed by IOTA for the calculation of the risk of malignancy of complex adnexal masses. In this case report a correct relationship between preoperative suspicion and final histologic outcome is observed.

REFERENCES

1. Salvador S, Scott S, Glanc P, Eiriksson L, Jang JH, SebastianelliA, Dean E. Guideline No. 403: Initial Investigation and Managementof Adnexal Masses. J Obstet Gynecol Can 2020;42 (8): 1021-1029.e3. doi:10.1016/j.jogc.2019.08.044

2. Practice Bulletin No. 174: Evaluation and Management ofAdnexal Masses. Obstet Gynecol 2016; 128 (5):2210-e226.doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000001768

3. Timmerman D, Planchamp F, Bourne T, du Bois L, et al.ESGO/ISUOG/IOTA/ESGE Consensus Statement on preoperativediagnosis of ovarian tumors. Ultrasound ObstetGynecol 2021; 58 (1): 148-86. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.23635

4. Bottoni P, Scatena R. The role of CA 125 as tumor marker:Biochemical and clinical aspects. Adv Exp Med Biol 2015;867: 229-44. doi: 10.1007/978-94-017-7215-0_14

5. Timmerman D, Valentin L, Bourne TH, Collins WP, VerrelstH, et al. Terms, definitions and measurements to describethe sonographic features of adnexal tumors: a consensusopinion from the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis(IOTA) Group. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2000; 16 (5):500-5. doi: 10.1046/j.1469-0705.2000.00287.x

6. González-Burgos OM, Álvarez-Licona NE, Lever-Rosas CD.Comparación de tres índices ecográficos para evaluacióndel riesgo de malignidad de los tumores anexiales.Ginecol Obstet Mex 2018; 86 (8): 519-29. https://doi.org/10.24245/gom.v86i8.1399

7. Meléndez-González CV, SaldañaSolorzano CF, Machorro-García EG, González-Habib R. Correlación entre elíndice de malignidad de Jacobs II y el reporte anatomopatológicoen tumores de ovario. Ginecol ObstetMex 2019; 87 (5): 277-87. https://doi.org/10.24245/gom.v87i5.2680

8. Cicchiello LA, Hamper UM, Scoutt LM. Ultrasound evaluationof gynecologic causes of pelvic pain. Obstet GynecolClin N Am 2011; 38: 85-114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ogc.2011.02.005