Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Retroperitoneal ‘uterus-like mass’ of cervical origin
  1. Nouran Karim1,2,
  2. Patricia Pantilie1,2 and
  3. Waseem Kamran1,2
  1. 1Gynaecology, Beacon Hospital, Dublin, Ireland
  2. 2Gynaecology, University College Dublin (UCD), Dublin, Ireland
  1. Correspondence to Dr Nouran Karim; nourankarim{at}


We report a rare case of a retroperitoneal uterus-like mass communicating with the endocervix, which presented as abdominal pain and bloating associated with severe irregular vaginal and postcoital bleeding. Our patient did not have any structural abnormalities of the urogenital system or otherwise, which makes a müllerian defect unlikely in our case. Based on the diagnostic criteria for the choristoma, that theory would be excluded here as the mass communicated with the endocervix. This strengthens the theory of metaplasia, under the effect of oestrogen and accelerated by the hyperoestrogenic state of pregnancy as the most likely postulate for our patient. Although the uterus-like mass is not commonly reported, it should be considered as a possible differential for pelvic masses.

  • Obstetrics and gynaecology
  • Pathology
  • Estrogens
  • Metaplasia
  • Cervix Uteri

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.


  • Contributors The following authors were responsible for drafting of the text, sourcing and editing of clinical images, investigation results, drawing original diagrams and algorithms, and critical revision for important intellectual content: WK, PP and NK. The following authors gave final approval of the manuscript: WK.

  • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

  • Case reports provide a valuable learning resource for the scientific community and can indicate areas of interest for future research. They should not be used in isolation to guide treatment choices or public health policy.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.