Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Fatty rind of intramuscular soft-tissue tumors of the extremity: is it different from the split fat sign?

  • Scientific Article
  • Published:
Skeletal Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective

To analyze intramuscular soft-tissue tumors with fatty rind, and to evaluate the difference between fatty rind and split fat sign on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).

Materials and methods

We retrospectively analyzed 50 pathologically confirmed intramuscular masses on MRI. We evaluated the distribution and shape of fatty rind and muscle atrophy.

Results

Fatty rind was found more frequently in benign lesions (80% [36 out of 45]) compared with malignant lesions (25% [1 out of 5]; P = 0.013). Thirty-six benign lesions were peripheral nerve sheath tumors (PNSTs; n = 19), hemangiomas (n = 11), myxomas (n = 2), ganglion cysts (n = 2), giant cell tumor (n = 1), and leiomyoma (n = 1). One malignant lesion was a low-grade fibromyxoid sarcoma. In all masses with fatty rind, fat was confined to the proximal and the distal ends. In 12 cases, complete or partial circumferential fatty rind was also noted. Fatty rinds at both ends showed crescent, triangular, or combined shape. The prevalence of crescent-shaped fatty rind was significantly higher in benign PNST (17 out of 38) compared with the other tumors (1 out of 32; P < 0.001). Complete circumferential fat was noted only in hemangioma (n = 5). Triangular fatty rind was related to peripheral location of the mass or muscle atrophy.

Conclusion

Most intramuscular tumors with fatty rinds were benign, and PNST was the most common tumor type. Fatty rind could be caused by displaced neurovascular bundle fat, fatty atrophy of the muscle involved, or intermuscular or perimysial fat. Crescent-shaped fatty rind was noted more frequently in benign PNSTs.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Stull MA, Moser Jr RP, Kransdorf MJ, Bogumill GP, Nelson MC. Magnetic resonance appearance of peripheral nerve sheath tumors. Skeletal Radiol. 1991;20:9–14.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Abreu E, Aubert S, Wavreille G, Gheno R, Canella C, Cotten A. Peripheral tumor and tumor-like neurogenic lesions. Eur J Radiol. 2013;82:38–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Murphey MD, Smith WS, Smith SE, Kransdorf MJ, Temple HT. From the archives of the AFIP. Imaging of musculoskeletal neurogenic tumors: radiologic-pathologic correlation. Radiographics. 1999;19:1253–80.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Pilavaki M, Chourmouzi D, Kiziridou A, Skordalaki A, Zarampoukas T, Drevelengas A. Imaging of peripheral nerve sheath tumors with pathologic correlation: pictorial review. Eur J Radiol. 2004;52:229–39.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Chee DW, Peh WC, Shek TW. Pictorial essay: imaging of peripheral nerve sheath tumours. Can Assoc Radiol J. 2011;62:176–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Salunke AA, Chen Y, Tan JH, et al. Intramuscular schwannoma: clinical and magnetic resonance imaging features. Singapore Med J. 2015;56:555.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Shimose S, Sugita T, Kubo T, et al. Major-nerve schwannomas versus intramuscular schwannomas. Acta Radiol. 2007;48:672–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Zhang Z, Deng L, Ding L, Meng Q. MR imaging differentiation of malignant soft tissue tumors from peripheral schwannomas with large size and heterogeneous signal intensity. Eur J Radiol. 2015;84:940–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Bancroft LW, Kransdorf MJ, Menke DM, O’Connor MI, Foster WC. Intramuscular myxoma: characteristic MR imaging features. Am J Roentgenol. 2002;178:1255–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Luna A, Martinez S, Bossen E. Magnetic resonance imaging of intramuscular myxoma with histological comparison and a review of the literature. Skeletal Radiol. 2005;34:19–28.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Murphey MD, McRae GA, Fanburg-Smith JC, Temple HT, Levine AM, Aboulafia AJ. Imaging of soft-tissue myxoma with emphasis on CT and MR and comparison of radiologic and pathologic findings. Radiology. 2002;225:215–24.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Kransdorf MJ, Murphey MD. Imaging of soft tissue tumors. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Olsen KI, Stacy GS, Montag A. Soft-tissue cavernous hemangioma. Radiographics. 2004;24:849–54.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Departments of Radiology, St. Vincent’s Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, 93, Jungbu-daero, Paldal-gu, Suwon, Gyeonggi-do, 16247, South Korea

    Jinkyeong Sung & Jee-Young Kim

Authors
  1. Jinkyeong Sung
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jee-Young Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jee-Young Kim.

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of interest

The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Funding

No funding was necessary to carry out this study.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were carried out in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sung, J., Kim, JY. Fatty rind of intramuscular soft-tissue tumors of the extremity: is it different from the split fat sign?. Skeletal Radiol 46, 665–673 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00256-017-2598-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00256-017-2598-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation