You are here

Article Text

Article menu

other Versions

Download PDFPDF
Epilogue
What’s that abdominal mass?
  1. Aarti Mistry1,
  2. Suman Bandhu2,
  3. Emily Davies1,
  4. Nicola Medd1
  1. 1Department of Pediatrics, Chesterfield Royal Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Chesterfield, Derbyshire, UK
  2. 2Department of Radiology, Chesterfield Royal Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Chesterfield, Derbyshire, UK
  1. Correspondence to Dr Aarti Mistry, Department of Paediatrics, Chesterfield Royal Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Chesterfield, Derbyshire, UK; aarti.k.mistry{at}gmail.com

https://doi.org/10.1136/archdischild-2017-312905

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    A woman was admitted for planned induction at 39+5 weeks gestation. This was her third pregnancy. She had two previous children who were fit and well. Antenatal scans showed a fetal intra-abdominal mass measuring 6.2×5.5×7 cm in the lower abdomen, which was compressing the bladder. The mass was thought to be originating from the ovary or the bowel.

    On postnatal examination, the baby girl had a distended and full abdomen. There was a right-sided abdominal mass palpable above the umbilicus and 3 cm in size. It was firm, smooth and mobile in consistency. She had a normal anus and external female genitalia, with evidence of a prolapsed vagina on crying. She had passed urine and opened her bowels.

    The baby was kept nil by mouth and on intravenous fluids until the abdominal radiography was performed. The image is shown in figure 1.

    Figure 1

    Neonatal abdominal radiograph.

    Question 1

    Describe the findings noted on the abdominal radiograph?

    She was …

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Contributors AM developed the idea of the epilogue, wrote the orginal manuscript and conducted the literature search. SB provided the figures and their description for the article. ED provided information on the clinical details and patient outcomes. NM helped review the final manuscript prior to publication and initially suggested that the case would be of interest to publish.

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Patient consent Obtained from guardian.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.