L P Beyer1, A Schreyer2. 1. Institut für Röntgendiagnostik, Universitätsklinikum Regensburg, Franz-Josef-Strauß-Allee 11, 93053, Regensburg, Deutschland. lukas.beyer@ukr.de. 2. Institut für Röntgendiagnostik, Universitätsklinikum Regensburg, Franz-Josef-Strauß-Allee 11, 93053, Regensburg, Deutschland.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Sclerosing mesenteritis (SM) and mesenteric panniculitis are rare processes of the mesentery which pose a major clinical and imaging challenge. This review article attempts to introduce a systematic nomenclature to address typical symptoms, imaging and major differential diagnoses. RESULTS: SM with its subtypes-mesenteric lipodystrophy, panniculitis and retractile mesenteritis-is a chronic process with a very diverse and heterogeneous clinical appearance. The typical radiological characteristics ("misty mesentery", increased lymph nodes, pseudocapsule and "fat halo") are also not very specific. A link between SM and malignant diseases is not proven, but there is controversial discussion. Therefore, if there are doubts about the diagnosis, further examinations and a biopsy are desired. CONCLUSION: When diagnosing SM, "red flags", i. e. characteristics that are atypical for SM in imaging, should be considered. In case of ambiguous imaging, differential diagnostics should also consider malignant diseases and exclude them.
BACKGROUND:Sclerosing mesenteritis (SM) and mesenteric panniculitis are rare processes of the mesentery which pose a major clinical and imaging challenge. This review article attempts to introduce a systematic nomenclature to address typical symptoms, imaging and major differential diagnoses. RESULTS: SM with its subtypes-mesenteric lipodystrophy, panniculitis and retractile mesenteritis-is a chronic process with a very diverse and heterogeneous clinical appearance. The typical radiological characteristics ("misty mesentery", increased lymph nodes, pseudocapsule and "fat halo") are also not very specific. A link between SM and malignant diseases is not proven, but there is controversial discussion. Therefore, if there are doubts about the diagnosis, further examinations and a biopsy are desired. CONCLUSION: When diagnosing SM, "red flags", i. e. characteristics that are atypical for SM in imaging, should be considered. In case of ambiguous imaging, differential diagnostics should also consider malignant diseases and exclude them.