BPG is committed to discovery and dissemination of knowledge
Case Report
©Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2026.
World J Gastrointest Surg. Feb 27, 2026; 18(2): 114137
Published online Feb 27, 2026. doi: 10.4240/wjgs.v18.i2.114137
Figure 1
Figure 1 Colonoscopy. A: Large submucosal mass 18 cm from the anal verge; B: Large submucosal mass 20 cm from the anal verge.
Figure 2
Figure 2 Endoscopic ultrasonography. A: A cystic mass 20 cm from the anal verger in the intrinsic muscular layer, with a size of 23.0 mm × 12.6 mm, clear boundary, regular morphology, protruding into the lumen, with poor internal transmission and heterogeneous echogenicity; B: A cystic mass 18 cm from the anal verger in the submucosal layer, with a size of 21.3 mm × 15.2 mm, clear boundary, regular morphology, protruding into the lumen, with anechoic echogenicity.
Figure 3
Figure 3 Contrast-enhanced computed tomography. A: Uneven-density foci on the plain scan, with smooth rectal mucosa and intact intestinal wall; B: Inhomogeneous enhancement is seen in the enhancement phases of the lesion.
Figure 4
Figure 4 Macroscopic examination and histopathological imaging of the specimen. A: The resected bowel specimen; B: Histopathological analysis of the resected specimen (hematoxylin × 40); C: The resected appendix; D: Simple appendicitis.