Association of XXXX with @entity2477 in the adult population: prevalence, imaging appearance, and relevance.

@entity1 @entity190 @entity409 @entity14311 @entity2477 @entity99
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of our study was to evaluate the association of @entity99 with @entity2477 ( @entity2477 ) and describe the imaging appearances and clinical relevance. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-one @entity1 who had undergone CT or MRI with reported @entity2477 (> 8 cm) between 1997 and 2009 were identified retrospectively. Three readers interpreted 27 MRI studies, 36 CT studies, and 16 ultrasound studies of these @entity1 . Prevalence, extent, and imaging appearance of coexistent @entity14311 in the surrounding liver parenchyma were evaluated. RESULTS: Forty-two GCHs were identified in 41 @entity1 and @entity14311 was present in 18 of 41 @entity1 (44%) with @entity2477 . Twelve @entity1 had a diffuse pattern of @entity14311 (67%), and six @entity1 showed a nodular pattern consisting of multiple coalescent nodules measuring < 5 mm (33%). There was no association between the size of the @entity2477 and presence and extent of @entity14311 . The common hepatic artery was enlarged (> 5 mm) in 14 @entity1 with @entity2477 , of whom 12 had associated @entity14311 . There was a statistically significant association between the size of the hepatic artery and presence of @entity14311 (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: @entity14311 is not rare in the liver parenchyma adjacent to a @entity2477 . The presence and extent of @entity14311 must be specifically communicated to referring physicians. Surgical candidates have to be carefully selected to avoid complications, such as excessive @entity190 and diminished risk of postoperative @entity409 from apparent overestimation of functional residual volume due to oversight of involved liver areas by @entity14311 .
