[An ultrastructural analysis of XXXX ].

@entity10476 @entity2828 @entity242 @entity8650 @entity5 @entity1418 @entity5606 @entity1352 @entity243 @entity1492 @entity3293 @entity1822 @entity980 @entity1821
The differential diagnosis of @entity8650 constitutes a major problem in surgical pathology. A distinction among @entity242 is sometimes difficult, but this is a situation in which histologic examination of representative tissue will give a diagnosis in the majority of cases. Electron microscopy sometimes contributes to the proper diagnosis of @entity242 . For electron microscopy, fresh samples from 110 cases of @entity242 filed at the Department of Pathology, Faculty of Medicine, Kyushu University, were examined. The distinguishing ultrastructural appearance of the following @entity5 are discussed: Spindle cell @entity242 ( @entity1822 10 cases, @entity5 5, @entity1492 5, monophasic @entity1352 ). Round cell @entity242 ( @entity980 10 cases, extraskeletal @entity2828 1, malignant @entity10476 1, @entity5606 of soft parts 3, monophasic @entity1352 9). @entity242 ( @entity1418 24 cases, @entity1821 1). @entity242 (myxoid @entity1418 8 cases, @entity243 8, extraskeletal @entity3293 4). @entity242 with a specific pattern. Using electron microscopy, general analysis of cellular morphology and detection of specific structures are helpful for evaluating these @entity242 . Nevertheless, poorly differentiated @entity242 may still pose a diagnostic dilemma, since their specific features are poorly represented.
