Bombay Hospital Journal ContentsHomeArchivesSearchBooksFeedback


Home > Table of Contents > Case Reports
 
Unusual Histological Findings in Meckel’s Diverticulum : A Case Report and Literature Review
 
RK Yallapragada*, B Ali**, McLatchie***
 
Meckel’s diverticulum is a known entity but perforated Meckel’s diverticulum associated with carcinoid tumour and ectopic gastric mucosa is a rare finding. We report such a case.
 
Introduction

True incidence of Meckel’s diverticulum is much higher as compared to cases reported in literature. Only Meckel’s diverticulum of high clinical importance has been reported so far. Carcinoid tumour in perforated Meckel’s diverticulum with ectopic gastric mucosa has been reported in only two cases before and this is a third one, out of 86 and 118 cases of reported perforated Meckel’s diverticulum and carcinoid tumour in Meckel’s diverticulum respectively. Here we are reporting a rare case of perforated Meckel’s diverticulum associated with carcinoid tumour and ectopic gastric mucosa.

 
Case Report

An 18 year old presented with sudden onset of stabbing, colicky lower abdominal pain after opening his bowels the day before admission. He had vomited four times (bilious), bowels not opened since the onset of pain. No significant past medical and surgical history. He was pyrexial but haemodynamically stable. The White cell count was elevated 32.5 x 109 per L. Erect chest and supine abdominal X-rays were inconclusive of pneumo peritoneum. As signs of peritonitis were obvious on examination, he underwent laparotomy via mid line incision. Findings were marked pus in pelvis, perforated and acutely inflamed Meckel’s diverticulum stuck in the pelvis. A band of adhesions from loop of Meckel’s to small bowel mesentery. Excision of Meckel’s diverticulum with a loop of small bowel was performed.

Histology revealed ulceration and perforation in the region adjacent to heterotopic gastric mucosa, with a tiny, microscopic focus of carcinoid tumour in the outer, muscularis propria (which stained positive for the immunostain chromografin) of the Meckel’s diverticulum.

At follow up after 3 years, the patient is totally asymptomatic and clinical examination was normal. On USS of liver and 5H1AA examination of the urine, nothing abnormal was detected.

 
Discussion

Meckel’s diverticulum is clinically silent and only discovered at the time of complications like inflammation, haemorrhage, obstruction, and tumour. It can mimic common abdominal disorders such as Crohn’s disease, appendicitis and peptic ulcer disease. It causes complications more frequently in males2 and therefore, is more often diagnosed in them. In a collective review of 1806 cases, the complications were as follows; haemorrhage in 31%, inflammation in 25%, band obstruction in 16%, intussusception in 11%, hernia entrapment in 11%, umbilical sinus or fistula formation in 4%, and tumour formation in 2%.3 Yamaguchi et al4 reported the largest modern series of symptomatic Meckels diverticula (600 cases of which nearly 50% were adults) which has reported intestinal obstruction (37%) was a more common complication than haemorrhage (12%). Malignancies in complicated Meckel's diverticulum are found in only 0.5 to 4.9 percent of patients. Carcinoids are the most common neoplasms, followed by sarcomas and adenocarcinomas.5 Stromal tumours including only 7 perforations out of 98 cases6 and adenocarcinoma in Meckel’s diverticulum in 36 cases as well as epithelioma and lymphosarcomatosis one each in perforated Meckel’s diverticulum are reported in current literature. Methods of diagnosis were laparotomy (66%) and autopsy (34%).

 
Diagnosis and Treatment
The most useful method of diagnosis is technetium-99m pertechnate scanning. However, the technetium scan depends on uptake by heterotopic gastric mucosa.7 Complications from Meckel’s diverticulum is surgical; Solitary, localized, asymptomatic nodules of less than 1 cm are generally managed either by simple excision in the transverse axis of the ileum to avoid luminal stenosis, or by resection of the adjacent ileal wall or a segment of ileum with anastamosis. The latter is reserved for patients with complicated diverticula. Larger or multiple lesions require wide excision of bowel and mesentery, and hepatic resection may be required for metastatic disease.8 Although uncommon, many cases of Meckel’s diverticulum may be quite suitable for laparoscopic diagnosis and treatment.9 Results of surgical excision are generally excellent.
 
References
1. John P Martin, Pamela D Connor, Kerri Charles, JD Meckel’s diverticulum. Am Fam Physician 2000; 61 (4) : 1037-42,1044.
2. Arnold JF, Pellicane JV. Meckel’s diverticulum: A ten-year experience. Am Surg 1997; 63 : 354-5.
3. Williams RS. Management of Meckel’s diverticulum. Br J Surg 1981; 68 : 477-80.
4. Yamaguchi M, Takeuchi S, Awazu S. Meckel’s diverticulum investigation of 600 patients in the Japanese literature. Am J Surg 1978; 136 : 247-9.
5. Weber JD. Carcinoid tumours in Meckel’s Diverticula: J Clin Gastroenterol 1989; 11 (6) : 682-6.
6. Fruhauf CH, Garcia A, Rosso R. Stromal tumour in a perforated Meckel’s diverticulum: A case report Swiss Surg 2002; 8 (6) : 273-6.
7. Weber JD, McFadden DW. Carcinoid tumours in Meckel’s diverticulum. J Clin Gastroenterol 1981; 11 : 682-6.
8. Carpenter SS, Grillis ME. Meckel’s diverticulitis secondary to carcinoid tumour: An usual presentation of the acute abdomen in an adult. Curr Surg 2003; 60 (3) : 301-3.
9. Sanders LE. Laparoscopic treatment of Meckels diverticulum: Obstruction and bleeding managed with minimal morbidity. Surg Endose 1995; 9 : 724-7.
   
ROFECOXIB AND CORONARY HEART DISEASE

‘Rofecoxib increases the risk of serious coronary heart disease‘

Cyclo-oxygenase 2 (COX2)-selective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are used to treat musculo-skeletal disorders such as arthritis. However, the issue of whether one particular COX2-selective drug-rofecoxib-might increase the risk of coronary heart disease is controversial. Using data from health-care records, David Graham and colleagues sought to establish if risk for serious coronary heart disease was higher with rofecoxib than with other NSAIDs. They reported that serious coronary events were increased with rofecoxib use. The researchers say that, in view of previous findings of high cardiac risk with this drug, rofecoxib should have been withdrawn from the market much earlier than 2004; such action could have prevented many thousands of deaths from coronary heart disease. In a Comment paper, Simon Maxwell and David Webb discuss what we have learnt about the management of new drugs - both by manufacturers and regulatory authorities - and say that increased attention will now fall on the cardiovascular safety of other COX2-selective drugs.

Lancet, 2004; 449, 475.

*Senior House Officer in General Surgery, University Hospital of Hartlepool, UK. **Locum Consultant Surgeon (Colorectal), James Cook University Hospital, Middlesbrough, UK. ***Consultant Surgeon (Sports Surgery), University Hospital of Hartlepool, North Tees and Hartlepool NHS Trust, Hartlepool, UK.