I had a CT scan of my abdomen about a week ago and below is the radiology report of the scan that I just got in the mail yesterday. I'm not sure what it is saying. Does anyone speak Medicalese? I'll mark each paragraph with a number and please tell me, if you can, what it's saying. One thing to note, due to the fact I am allergic to iodine dye I could not have that type of CT scan. Instead I had to drink this 1000 ml bottle of cherry flavored "dilute water-soluble oral contrast" that would do the next best thing. Here you go:
UPPER ABDOMEN: The lung bases and imaged pleural spaces appear normal.
1) There is a focal area of low attenuation lying adjacent to the intrahepatic cava, best seen in image 14. This not fully characterized and measures approximately 1 cm. The remainder of the hepatic parenchyma, spleen, and pancreas are poorly imaged though felt grossly normal. The gallbladder is present.
2) No adrenal lesions are seen. There is a single calyceal stone on the right measuring approximately 2 to 3 mm. None on the left. There is no hydronephrosis or perinephric stranding. Ther are no calcifications seen along the course of the proximal ureters. There is no hydroureter.
3) No bulky adenopathy or mass is identified, and no free air or ascites is seen. The remainder of the exam is limited due to lack of intravenous contrast but felt grossly normal.
4) PELVIS: No pelvic massess, adenopathy, abnormal fluid collections, or focal inflammatory changes are seen. Small, fat-containing left hernia is felt to be present.
1- Small right-sided calyceal stone.
2- 1-cm focus on low attenuation involving the liver, not fully characterized.
3- Small, fat-containing left inguinal hernia.
Other than I have the beginnings of a healthy, bouncing baby kidney stone (which I had no idea it was there) rearing its ugly head to the world, and for me to endure, what does this all say about my guts?
By the way, if it is "poorly imaged," how can the radiologist say, "felt grossly normal"?