4.5 Article

Diagnostic Efficacy of Rectal Suction Biopsy with Regard to Weight in Children Investigated for Hirschsprung's Disease

期刊

CHILDREN-BASEL
卷 9, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/children9020124

关键词

children; Hirschsprung's disease; rectal suction biopsy

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study explored the influence of weight on the diagnostic efficacy of rectal suction biopsy (RSB) and found that RSB diagnostic efficacy was higher in children weighing less than 9.0 kg. The study also found lower diagnostic efficacy in aganglionic tissue compared to ganglionic tissue. Therefore, weight can be used to predict RSB diagnostic efficacy.
Background/aim: Diagnostic efficacy, defined as the percentage of rectal suction biopsy (RSB) specimens sufficient enough to determine the absence of ganglia cells in Hirschsprung's disease (HD) diagnosis, has been reported to be low, requiring repeated biopsies. The aim was to explore whether RSB diagnostic efficacy was influenced by the child's weight and to ascertain whether RSB efficacy differed between aganglionic and ganglionic tissue. Materials and Methods: Efficacy analyses were conducted in a national HD-center's register on children 0-15 kg, examined between 2011-2019. First-time RSB diagnostic efficacy was correlated to the children's weight and final HD diagnosis. Results: Among the 84 children who had first-time RSB, the overall diagnostic efficacy was 85% (71/84). The efficacy was higher among children weighing less than the identified cut-off of 9.0 kg (89% in 0-9.0 kg versus 62% in 9.01-15.0 kg, p = 0.026). Among children diagnosed with HD, 96% (26/27) weighed 0-9.0 kg. In this weight group, the diagnostic efficacy was lower in aganglionosis compared to ganglionosis (77%; 20/26 versus 96%; 43/45), p = 0.045). Conclusions: The RSB diagnostic efficacy was significantly higher in children weighing less than 9.0 kg and was less in aganglionic compared to ganglionic tissue. Therefore, weight can be useful to predict RSB diagnostic efficacy.

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