4.5 Article

Efficacy of Ultrasound-Guided Needle Biopsy in the Diagnosis of Kikuchi-Fujimoto Disease

期刊

LARYNGOSCOPE
卷 131, 期 5, 页码 E1519-E1523

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/lary.29160

关键词

Kikuchi-Fujimoto disease; core needle biopsy; fine-needle aspiration cytology; cervical lymphadenopathy; subacute necrotizing lymphadenitis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of US-CNB and compare it with US-FNAC in diagnosing KFD. US-CNB showed higher diagnostic accuracy compared to US-FNAC, indicating it as a safe and effective primary modality for the pathological diagnosis of KFD.
Objectives/Hypothesis Ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration cytology (US-FNAC) is a well-established procedure performed to establish the diagnosis of Kikuchi-Fujimoto disease (KFD). Ultrasound-guided core needle biopsy (US-CNB) is an alternative diagnostic tool for KFD. However, the efficacy of US-CNB is not well evaluated. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of US-CNB and compare it with that of US-FNAC in the diagnosis of KFD. Study Design Retrospective cohort study. Methods We analyzed 170 patients who were diagnosed with KFD between January 2009 and May 2019. US-FNAC, US-CNB, and excisional biopsy were performed in 47, 114, and 9 patients, respectively. Diagnostic accuracies of US-FNAC and US-CNB were analyzed and compared. Results Of the 170 patients, 45 and 125 were men and women, respectively. The mean age was 26.9 +/- 9.1 years. The most common symptom was cervical lymphadenopathy, followed by fever, headache, and myalgia. The diagnosis of KFD was established primarily by US-FNAC in 21 (44.7%) of the 47 patients, by US-CNB in 109 (95.6%) of the 114 patients, and by excisional biopsy in all 9 patients. There was no specific major complication related to US-FNAC and US-CNB. Conclusion US-CNB can be considered safe and effective and used as the primary modality for the pathological diagnosis of KFD. Level of Evidence 4.Laryngoscope, 2020

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据