Skip to main content
BMJ Case Reports logoLink to BMJ Case Reports
. 2009 Aug 10;2009:bcr06.2009.1953. doi: 10.1136/bcr.06.2009.1953

The wandering splenunculus: a diagnostic dilemma

Gráinne M Murphy 1, Simon Rajendran 2, Adrian Ireland 2, Deirdre O’Hanlon 2, Michael Murphy 3
PMCID: PMC3027512  PMID: 21829427

A 63-year-old man with a history of radical prostatectomy for prostate carcinoma was diagnosed as having synchronous rectosigmoid adenocarcinoma and ileal carcinoid. He underwent a sigmoid colectomy, right hemicolectomy and defunctioning ileostomy, which was successfully reversed 1 month later.

On a follow-up CT scan at 6 months, a 9 mm soft tissue density nodule was identified in the left upper quadrant lateral to the spleen, which was not present previously, raising the suspicion of a peritoneal deposit. However on careful review of the patient’s previous CT scans, this was shown to represent a highly mobile splenunculus on a long vascular pedicle that had moved from the splenic hilum to the lateral aspect of spleen (fig 1).

Figure 1.

Figure 1

A 9 mm splenunculus ((A), arrow) on an 8 cm vascular pedicle ((A), arrowhead). The splenunculus was noted on the anterior aspect ((B), arrow) and splenic hilar region ((C), arrow) on previous scans.

Single or multiple splenunculi are a common finding on modern cross-sectional imaging and rarely present a diagnostic challenge.1 A mobile splenunculus however, as in this case, is a rare condition1 that may be misdiagnosed as a new peritoneal or metastatic deposit. The important diagnostic features are changing position on interval scanning and identification of a vascular supply.

This case highlights the importance of having a high index of suspicion for splenunculi on cross sectional imaging scans in malignancy staging as they occasionally show marked mobility with the potential for misinterpretation.2,3 A diligent search for a vascular supply and a careful review of previous imaging should confirm the diagnosis. Follow-up imaging may be required when findings are inconclusive.

Footnotes

Competing interests: None.

Patient consent: Patient/guardian consent was obtained for publication.

REFERENCES

  • 1.Peddu P, Shah M, Sidhu PS. Splenic abnormalities: a comparative review of ultrasound, microbubble-enhanced ultrasound and computed tomography. Clin Radiol 2004; 59: 777–92 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Froehner M, Leike S, Manseck A, et al. Splenunculus mimicking late local recurrence of renal cell carcinoma. Scand J Urol Nephrol 1998; 32: 418–9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Dawson C, McCormick C, Menai-Williams R, et al. Splenunculus masquerading as an adrenal mass. Br J Urol 1995; 76: 404–5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from BMJ Case Reports are provided here courtesy of BMJ Publishing Group

RESOURCES