| Literature DB >> 28194490 |
Daniel Kokong1,2, Augustine Iduh3, Ikechukwu Chukwu3, Joyce Mugu4, Samuel Nuhu5, Sule Augustine6.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is no consensus opinion on a definitive surgical management option for ranulas to curtail recurrence, largely from the existing gap in knowledge on the pathophysiologic basis. AIM: To highlight the current scientific basis of ranula development that informed the preferred surgical approach.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28194490 PMCID: PMC5422487 DOI: 10.1007/s00268-017-3901-2
Source DB: PubMed Journal: World J Surg ISSN: 0364-2313 Impact factor: 3.352
Fig. 1Age–gender distribution of ranulas
Fig. 2Various surgical treatment modalities offered, with their recurrence rates
Fig. 3Frog underbelly appearance of ranulas (arrow). Picture taken during an operation via a transcervical approach on a 25-year-old male peasant farmer with a right-sided plunging ranula
Fig. 4A plunging ranula surgical specimen on completion of the earlier-shown operation. This depicts a typical plunging ranula that consists of the cyst (first arrow above) and a ‘tail’ (the tail comprises the neck, stalk and the extirpated sublingual salivary gland)—the ‘tail sign’ phenomenon is pathognomonic (subsequent three arrows downwards, respectively)
Fig. 5A photomicrograph of the ranula specimen following H&E low power (×10) displaying pools of mucin surrounded by inflammatory cells and fibrosis. Also seen are giant cells (mucinophages) (arrows)
Fig. 6A photomicrograph of the ranula specimen following H&E low power (×10) showing extracellular pools of salivary mucin (arrow) surrounded by inflammatory cells and fibrosis
Fig. 7A photomicrograph of the ranula specimen following H&E low power (×4) showing extracellular pools of salivary mucin (arrow) surrounded by inflammatory cells and fibrosis. Normal salivary gland tissue seen below confirming our approach of en bloc removal of both ranula and the offending sublingual salivary gland