Two cases of histologically proven giant retroperitoneal lipomas are presented. Both were evaluated by computed tomography and sonography. Although the computed tomography findings of both lesions were similar, they exhibited different echographic patterns sonographically. In this article, the authors discuss the various ultrasonographic characteristics of body fat, and they present possible explanations.
8. Behan NM, Kazam L: the echographic characteristics of fatty tissues and tumors. Radiology1978; 129: 143-151.
9.
9. Brammer HFM, Smith WAS, Lubbers PR: Septated hpoechoic perirenal fat on sonograms: A pitfall in renal ultrasonography. J Ultrasound Med1992;11:361-363.
10.
10. kUnin M: Bridging septa of the perinephric space: Anatomic, pathologic, and diagnostic considerations. Radiology1986;158:361-365.
11.
11. Prando A, Wallace S, Marins JLC, Pereira RM, de Oliveirs ER, Alharenga NXI: Songraphic features of' enign intraperitoneal lipomatous tumors in children-Report of 4 cases. Pediatr Radiol1990;20:571-574.
12.
12. Young LW, Severson MV, Burke EC, llatters RR: Retroperitoneal lipoma in a child. Am J Dis Child1980;134:83-84.
13.
13. Sheth S, Fishman ELK, Buck jL., Hamper UXI, Sanders RC: The variable sonographic appearances of ovarian teratomas: Correlation x ith CT. AJR1998;151:331-334.
