1988
DOI: 10.1016/s0016-5107(88)71231-6
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Microcystic adenoma of the pancreas demonstrated by endoscopic retrograde pancreatography

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

1990
1990
2016
2016

Publication Types

Select...
5
2

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 16 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 7 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…We suggest the use of ERCP to further differentiate between cystic tumour and ductal adenocarcinoma of the pancreas. The only disadvantage reported about ERCP is the poor differentiation between cystic tumours and pseudocysts [19,20]. However, in our patients we had no instance of opacification of the cystic tumour in pancreatograms performed in 46 patients with cystic neoplasms.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 55%
“…We suggest the use of ERCP to further differentiate between cystic tumour and ductal adenocarcinoma of the pancreas. The only disadvantage reported about ERCP is the poor differentiation between cystic tumours and pseudocysts [19,20]. However, in our patients we had no instance of opacification of the cystic tumour in pancreatograms performed in 46 patients with cystic neoplasms.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 55%
“…However, a 2012 Japanese nationwide survey publicized that this pancreatic duct communication existed with SCAs, although at a low rate: 8% in the microscopic-type, 0% in mixed-type and solid-type, and 15% in the macroscopic-type [7]. According to our PubMed keyword survey, within four previous cases of SCAs with communication to the pancreatic ducts [12][13][14][15], Furukawa et al reported a similar case with narrowing of the MPD, compressed by an SCA, 4 cm in size, at the pancreatic head [14]. In performing the critical differential diagnosis, we must bear in mind the possible communication of SCA and the pancreatic duct system.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 81%