| Literature DB >> 32642092 |
Adriana Scamporlino1, Ciro Ruggiero1, Beatrice Aramini1, Uliano Morandi1, Alessandro Stefani1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Elastofibroma dorsi (ED) is a benign soft-tissue tumor of the chest wall located near the tip of the scapula. Clinical presentation includes swelling, pain and impairment of shoulder movements. The present literature relies only on few small case series. The aim of this study was to analyze the surgical management of ED, focusing on the debated topics regarding preoperative evaluation, operative technique, post-operative outcome and follow-up.Entities:
Keywords: Subscapular mass; benign tumor; elastofibroma dorsi (ED); surgery
Year: 2020 PMID: 32642092 PMCID: PMC7330361 DOI: 10.21037/jtd-20-649
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Thorac Dis ISSN: 2072-1439 Impact factor: 3.005
Figure 1The flowchart represents preoperative work-up according to the algorithm adopted in our Institution.
Characteristics of the 59 patients
| Variables | Number |
|---|---|
| Age (years) | 59.6 [33–81] |
| Sex, N [%] | |
| Male | 24 [41] |
| Female | 35 [59] |
| Body mass index | 25.9 [17.2–39.7] |
| Manual/heavy activities, N [%] | |
| Yes | 27 [46] |
| No | 32 [54] |
| Antiplatelet therapy, N [%] | |
| Yes | 8 [14] |
| No | 51 [86] |
| ASA score, N [%] | |
| I-II | 50 [85] |
| III | 9 [15] |
Continuous variables are expressed as mean and range.
Perioperative features and complications of the 70 surgical procedures
| Variables | Number |
|---|---|
| Operative time (min) | 90.2 [25–150] |
| Complications, N [%] | 12 [17] |
| Seroma | 7 |
| Hematoma | 2 |
| Infection | 2 |
| Prolonged impairment of shoulder movement | 1 |
| Drainage time (days) | 3.0 [1–17] |
| Length of hospital stay (days) | 2.0 [1–9] |
| Discharge with drain in place, N [%] | 13 [19] |
Continuous variables are expressed as median and range, except for operative time (mean and range).
Multivariate analysis. Risk factors for postoperative complications
| Covariates | Complications, yes | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| OR | 95% CI | P | |
| Age (≤59 | 0.77 | 0.15–3.99 | 0.757 |
| BMI (≤25 | 8.71 | 1.33–57.14 | 0.024 |
| Manual/heavy activities (yes | 1.90 | 0.44–8.20 | 0.390 |
| Antiplatelet therapy (yes | 3.76 | 0.67–21.20 | 0.133 |
| ASA score (I-II | 0.49 | 0.02–8.35 | 0.625 |
| Side (right | 1.72 | 0.38–7.89 | 0.485 |
| Operative time (>90 | 2.61 | 0.55–12.34 | 0.227 |
| Pathological diameter (>80 | 2.00 | 0.38–10.70 | 0.417 |
BMI, body mass index; ASA, American Society of Anesthesiologist; OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence intervals.
Figure 2Graphics with plotted points and regression lines show the correlation between elastofibromas diameter measured by ultrasonography and pathology (A), MRI and pathology (B), CT-scan and pathology (C).
Absolute differences between radiological and pathological diameters, and frequencies of underestimated and overestimated measurements by each imaging technique
| Imaging technique | Difference between radiological and pathological diameters (mm) | Underestimated measurements | Overestimated measurements |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ultrasonography (n=56) | 25.0±18.7 | 48 (86%) | 8 (14%) |
| CT-scan (n=47) | 8.4±9.9 | 36 (77%) | 11 (23%) |
| MRI (n=30) | 16.7±11.6 | 24 (80%) | 6 (20%) |
Differences are expressed as means ± standard deviation.
Imaging features of ED on US, CT-scan and MRI and their relative pros and cons in the diagnostic assessment process
| Characteristics | Ultrasonography | CT-scan | MRI |
|---|---|---|---|
| Main features | Solid oval lesion | Solid lenticular lesion | Solid lenticular lesion |
| Ill-defined margins on superficial and deep planes | Well-defined margins on superficial planes and ill-defined margins on deep ones | Well-defined margins on superficial and deep planes | |
| No evidence of intralesional vascularization at color-Doppler evaluation | Variable and non specific enhancement pattern after i.v. administration of iodinate contrast agent | Variable and non specific enhancement pattern after i.v. administration of gadolinium-based contrast agent | |
| Pros | Easily accessible; inexpensive; quick procedure | Easily available; moderately expensive; rapid time of execution; bone integrity assessment | Optimal identification of the fibrous and adipose components of ED |
| Cons | Unable to identify the subscapular component of ED; influenced by deep artifacts and patient's body constitution | Poor evaluation of the adipose component of ED | Limited availability; expensive; longer time of execution; poor evaluation of undelaying bone structures |
ED, elastofibroma dorsi.