Open Access

Giant peritoneal loose body in the pelvic cavity confirmed by laparoscopic exploration: a case report and review of the literature

  • Hong Zhang1Email author,
  • Yun-zhi Ling1,
  • Ming-ming Cui1,
  • Zhi-xiu Xia1,
  • Yong Feng1 and
  • Chun-sheng Chen1
World Journal of Surgical Oncology201513:118

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12957-015-0539-0

Received: 23 December 2014

Accepted: 7 March 2015

Published: 24 March 2015

Abstract

A 51-year-old previously healthy male underwent a routine medical examination. Computed tomography and ultrasonography showed an oval-shaped mass that was about 50 × 40 mm in size in the left iliac fossa. Prior to surgery, the lesion was suspected to be a teratoma with core calcification or stromal tumor derived from the rectosigmoid colon. During the procedure, a yellow-white, egg-shaped mass was discovered that was completely free from the pelvic cavity in front of the rectum. The giant, peritoneal loose body was taken out through the enlarged port site. Histological examination showed that the mass consisted of well-circumscribed, unencapsulated, paucicellular tissue, with an obviously hyalinized fibrosclerotic center. A giant peritoneal body is extremely rare. We report such a case and review previously published literature.

Background

Peritoneal loose bodies are rare. They are usually found at laparotomy or autopsy by accident. In most cases, these bodies are derived from appendix epiploica. The most common size of loose bodies is about from 5 to 20 mm in diameter. Occasionally, they grow to larger than 50 mm by absorbing protein from peritoneal serum [1,2]. We report a case of a giant peritoneal loose body measuring 50 × 40 × 40 mm in the pelvic cavity which happened in a 51-year-old man and confirmed by laparoscopic exploration.

Case presentation

A previously healthy 51-year-old man underwent a routine medical examination. An incidental pelvic solid mass was detected on ultrasonography (Figure 1) and computed tomography (CT) (Figure 2). The oval-shaped mass was about 50 × 40 mm in size and showed a low-density lesion with clear boundaries, a complete capsule, and two calcifications in the central part on the CT scan. The mass lay adjacent to the sigmoid colon in the left iliac fossa. The patient had no complaints or significant past medical history. No abnormality was found on physical exam including digital rectal examination. Tumor markers and other laboratory tests were within the normal range.
Figure 1

Two-dimensional ultrasound imaging showed a solid mass with clear boundary. It was hypoechoic with hyperechoic spots in the central part.

Figure 2

Abdominal computed tomography findings. (A) Axial image demonstrated a low-density lesion with complete capsule and two calcifications in the central part. (B) Sagittal image showed the mass adjacent to the sigmoid colon in the left iliac fossa.

Based on the present imaging findings, the preoperative diagnosis of teratoma with core calcification or stromal tumor derived from the rectosigmoid colon was suspected. Accordingly, diagnostic laparoscopic surgery was performed. A yellow-white, egg-shaped body that was completely free from the pelvic cavity was found in front of the rectum (Figure 3A). Further laparoscopic exploration of pelvic and abdominal organs demonstrated that the liver, stomach, intestine, colon, and rectum were all normal. Finally, the peritoneal loose body was put into an endoscopic retriever bag, taken out through the enlarged port site in the right lower abdomen, and sent for histopathological examination (Figure 3B).
Figure 3

Laparoscopic findings. (A) A yellow-white, egg-shaped body that was completely free from the pelvic cavity was found in front of the rectum. (B) The body was put into an endoscopic retriever bag and taken out through the port site.

On gross pathologic examination, the peritoneal loose body measured 50 × 40 × 40 mm. It was yellow-white, oval in shape, and it had a bony-hard, smooth surface. The cross section displayed a thread-like appearance. There were two calcified cores filled with yellow cheese-like material, and the interval distance between the two cores was about 5 mm (Figure 4). Histologically, the lesion consisted of well-circumscribed, unencapsulated, paucicellular tissue, with an obviously hyalinized fibrosclerotic center. At the periphery, the lesion was paucicellular, containing spindled fibroblasts embedded in a collagenous stroma (Figure 5).
Figure 4

Gross pathologic examination. (A) The peritoneal loose body was 50 × 40 × 40 mm in size, oval-shaped, and yellow-white in appearance with a bony-hard, smooth surface, but without an obviously fibrous capsule. (B) The cross section displayed a thread-like appearance. There were two calcified cores filled with yellow cheese-like material.

Figure 5

Histologic findings. (A) The lesion consisted of well-circumscribed, unencapsulated, paucicellular tissue, with an obviously hyalinized fibrosclerotic center [HE, ×100]. (B) At the periphery, the lesion was paucicellular, containing spindled fibroblasts embedded in a collagenous stroma. Scattered slit-like spaces were frequent [HE, ×400].

Our patient recovered well post-operatively. He was discharged from the hospital 2 days after surgery.

Discussion

Peritoneal loose bodies are also called peritoneal mice. There is limited information about the incidence of peritoneal loose bodies around the world. They are very rare and usually incidentally diagnosed during surgery or autopsy. The characteristics of 22 cases that have been reported are shown in Table 1; we found that peritoneal loose body is more common in males. The incidence rate ratio between males and females is 18:4. The age span of patients at the time of diagnosis ranges from 2 months to 79 years, and the majority occurs in patients between 50 and 70 years old. Most peritoneal loose bodies range from 5 to 25 mm in size and generally do not cause any symptoms. When the maximum diameter reaches more than 50 mm, they can be called giant peritoneal loose bodies. The largest peritoneal loose body measured 95 × 86 mm and was reported by Mohri et al. [1] in 2007. Giant peritoneal loose bodies are not usually associated with specific symptoms except for chronic abdominal pain in some cases [1-3]. In our case, the giant peritoneal loose body was 50 × 40 × 40 mm in size and did not cause any discomfort; it was found incidentally on physical examination. Occasionally, if the peritoneal loose bodies are large enough and in a particular location, patients may be admitted to the hospital with acute urinary retention [4,5] or intestinal obstruction [6-8] due to extrinsic compression.
Table 1

Summary of the information of 22 cases in the literature

Author

Published year

Gender

Age

Symptoms

Size of PLB (mm)

Weight of PLB (g)

Surgical methods

Mohri et al. [1]

2007

M

73 years

Abdominal pain

95 × 75 × 66

220

Open

Hedawoo and Wagh [2]

2010

M

65 years

Abdominal pain

95 × 86

-

Open

Murat and Gettman [3]

2004

M

47 years

Pelvic pain

35 × 28 × 25

-

Laparoscopy

Bhandarwar et al. [4]

1996

M

65 years

Acute retention of urine

90 × 80

210

Open

Shepherd [5]

1951

M

79 years

Acute retention of urine

70 × 55

-

Open

Sewkani et al. [6]

2011

M

64 years

Abdominal pain

70 × 50

74

Open

Ghosh et al. [7]

2006

M

63 years

Intestinal obstruction

58 × 45 × 37 and 52 × 45 × 37

-

Open

Kao et al. [8]

2010

F

69 years

Intestinal obstruction

40 × 30 × 23

-

Open

Kogao et al. [10]

2010

F

33 years

Infertility

30 × 20

-

Laparoscopy

Gayer and Petrovitch [12]

2011

M

59 years

Incidental

30

-

Untreated

Nomura et al. [13]

2003

M

63 years

Incidental

50 × 40 × 30

-

Laparoscopy

Asabe et al. [14]

2005

F

2 months

Urinary tract infection

30

-

Laparoscopy

Kim et al. [15]

2013

M

50 years

Incidental

75 × 70 × 68

160

Laparoscopy

Sahadev and Nagappa [16]

2014

M

52 years

Abdominal pain

70 × 60

-

Laparoscopy

Jang et al. [17]

2012

M

60 years

Incidental

45 × 40 × 30

-

Laparoscopy

Nozu and Okumuta [18]

2012

M

67 years

Incidental

40

-

Untreated

Burns and James [19]

1969

F

33 years

Incidental

18 × 13

-

Open

Maekawa [20]

2013

M

58 years

Incidental

20

-

Open

Makineni et al. [21]

2014

M

52 years

Abdominal discomfort

60

-

Open

Allam et al. [22]

2013

M

77 years

Abdominal pain

17

-

Untreated

Huang et al. [23]

2011

M

55 years

Intestinal obstruction

-

-

Open

Takada et al. [24]

1998

M

79 years

Incidental

70 × 60 and 70 × 60

78 and 66

Open

PLB, peritoneal loose body.

Thus far, the exact pathogenesis of peritoneal loose bodies has not been clearly defined. Possible sources include: (1) appendix epiploica, (2) omentum [9], (3) autoamputated adnexa [10], or (4) fat tissue in the pancreas [11]. The most common source is appendix epiploica. It is believed that the process is sequential. First, chronic torsion of the appendix epiploica occurs, and the blood supply is shut off, followed by saponification and calcification of fat tissue. Finally, the appendix epiploica detaches from the colon due to atrophy of the pedicle and becomes a peritoneal loose body. Many authors suggest that the body gradually absorbs protein from peritoneal serum. The size of the peritoneal loose body increases slowly, like a snowball. However, the growth speed of the peritoneal loose body and the factors that promote or inhibit growth are unknown. Mohri et al. [1] discovered a peritoneal loose body in a 73-year-old man’s pelvic cavity that grew from 73 × 70 mm to 95 × 75 mm in 5 years. In addition, there was another case [12] of a peritoneal loose body that did not significantly change in size or appearance in 3 years. Interestingly, Koga K et al. [10] removed a 30 × 20 mm peritoneal loose body from a 33-year-old woman who, at 9 years of age, had adnexal torsion followed by calcification and autoamputation.

The differential diagnosis associated with peritoneal loose body include the following: (1) benign disease: leiomyoma, rhabdomyomas, teratoma, and fibroma; (2) malignant disease: colorectal cancer, ovarian cancer, and metastases; (3) calculous disease: urinary stones, gallstones, and appendix stones; (4) tubercular granuloma; and (5) others: calcification of lymph nodes, lymphoma, and foreign bodies. CT and MRI can be performed to distinguish peritoneal loose bodies from other lesions. For example, leiomyoma and some tumors enhance after injection of a contrast agent, while the appearance of peritoneal loose bodies remains unchanged.

Treatment is surgical removal because it is not easy to establish definite diagnosis preoperatively via physical examination and imaging technologies. Laparoscopic exploration is recommended [3,13-17]. Laparoscopy not only reduces surgical trauma but also shortens the patient’s hospitalization time. In our case, the patient was discharged from the hospital 2 days after surgery. Moreover, the loose body can be removed through a slightly enlarged trocar incision, and patients will not have a scar.

Until now, there have been no reports about the leading cause of death or recurrence in patients with peritoneal loose body. No harm has been shown to patients who receive active treatment.

Conclusions

Peritoneal loose bodies are generally found incidentally. Clinically, if CT or other imaging shows an oval-shaped mass with or without calcifications in the central region, peritoneal loose body should be considered. Surgical removal is recommended for the patient with acute retention of urine or intestinal obstruction. Additionally, laparoscopy may be the best choice when the preoperative diagnosis is not clear and the lesion does not cause any clinical symptoms.

Consent

Written informed consent was obtained from the patient for publication of this case report and any accompanying images. A copy of the written consent is available for review by the Editor-in-Chief of this journal.

Declarations

Acknowledgements

The study was financially supported by the Natural Science Foundation of Liaoning Province, China (2013021098).

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of Colorectal Surgery, Shengjing Hospital, China Medical University

References

  1. Mohri T, Kato T, Suzuki H. A giant peritoneal loose body: report of a case. Am Surg. 2007;73(9):895–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Hedawoo JB, Wagh A. Giant peritoneal loose body in a patient with haemorrhoids. Trop Gastroenterol. 2010;31(2):132–3.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Murat FJ, Gettman MT. Free-floating organized fat necrosis: rare presentation of pelvic mass managed with laparoscopic techniques. Urology. 2004;63(1):176–7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Bhandarwar AH, Desai VV, Gajbhive RN, Deshraj BP. Acute retention of urine due to a loose peritoneal body. Br J Urol. 1996;78(6):951–2.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Shepherd JA. Peritoneal loose body causing acute retention of urine. Br J Surg. 1951;39(154):185–7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Sewkani A, Jain A, Maudar K, Varshney S. ‘Boiled egg’ in the peritoneal cavity-a giant peritoneal loose body in a 64-year-old man: a case report. J Med Case Rep. 2011;5:297.View ArticlePubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Ghosh P, Strong C, Naugler W, Haghighi P, Carthers JM. Peritoneal mice implicated in intestinal obstruction: report of a case and review of the literature. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2006;40(5):427–30.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Kao CH, Hsu KF, Fan HL, Li YF, Chen CJ. A case of intestinal obstruction caused by a peritoneal loose body mimicking gallstone ileus. Acta Gastroenterol Belg. 2010;73(3):413–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Ghabremani GG, White ME, Hoff FL, Gore RM, Miller JW, Christ ML. Appendices epiploicae of the colon: radiologic and pathologic feature. Radiographics. 1992;12:59–77.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  10. Koga K, Hiroi H, Osuga Y, Nagai M, Yano T, Taketani Y. Autoamputated adnexa presents as a peritoneal loose body. Fertil Steril. 2010;93(3):967–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Takabe K, Greenberg JI, Blair SL. Giant peritoneal loose bodies. J Gastrointest Surg. 2006;10(3):465–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Gayer G, Petrovitch I. CT diagnosis of a large peritoneal loose body: a case report and review of the literature. Br J Radiol. 2011;84(1000):83–5.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  13. Nomura H, Hata F, Yasoshima T, Kuwahara S, Naohara T, Nishimori H, et al. Giant peritoneal loose body in the pelvic cavity: report of a case. Surg Today. 2003;33:791–3.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Asabe K, Maekawa T, Yamashita Y, Shirakusa T. Endoscopic extraction of a peritoneal loose body: a case report of an infant. Pediatr Surg Int. 2005;21(5):388–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Kim HS, Sung JY, Park WS, Kim YW. A giant peritoneal loose body. Korean J Pathol. 2013;47(4):378–82.View ArticlePubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Sahadev R, Nagappa PK. A case of peritoneal free floating calcified fibromyoma. J Clin Diagn Res. 2014;8(5):ND03–4.PubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Jang JT, Kang HJ, Yoon JY, Yoon SG. Giant peritoneal loose body in the pelvic cavity. J Korean Soc Coloproctol. 2012;28(2):108–10.View ArticlePubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Nozu T, Okumura T. Peritoneal loose body. Intern Med. 2012;51(15):2057.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Burns JB, Rogers Jr JV. A sequestered ovary as a loose peritoneal body. J South Med J. 1969;62(8):995–9.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  20. Maekawa T, Komine M, Murata S, Ohtsuki M. Peritoneal loose body: a case report and comparison with encapsulated fat necrosis. J Dermatol. 2013;40(12):1058–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Makineni H, Thejeswi P, Prabhu S, Bhat RR. Giant peritoneal loose body: a case report and review of literature. J Clin Diagn Res. 2014;8(1):187–8.PubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Allam T, Muzaffar R, Nguyen NC, Osman MM. Peritoneal mouse as detected on (18)F-FDG PET-CT. Front Oncol. 2013;3:83.View ArticlePubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Huang CH, Lin SC, Chang KC, Chow NH. Numerous peritoneal loose bodies with ileus. Histopathology. 2011;58(2):318–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Takada A, Moriya Y, Muramatsu Y, Sagae T. A case of giant peritoneal loose bodies mimicking calcified leiomyoma originating from the rectum. Jpn J Clin Oncol. 1998;28:441–2.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© Zhang et al.; licensee BioMed Central. 2015

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Advertisement