4.4 Article

CT-guided percutaneous fine-needle aspiration biopsy of pulmonary nodules measuring 10 mm or less

期刊

CLINICAL RADIOLOGY
卷 63, 期 3, 页码 272-277

出版社

W B SAUNDERS CO LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.crad.2007.09.003

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

AIM: To determine the value of computed tomography (CT)-guided fine-needle aspiration biopsy (FNAB) of small pulmonary nodules measuring 10 mm or less. MATERIAL AND METHODS: CT-guided FNABs of 55 nodules, measuring 10 mm or less, were performed between January 2003 and February 2006. A coaxial technique was used, with an outer 19 G Bard Truguide needle and inner 22 G disposable Greene biopsy needle. Adequacy of specimens was assessed on-site by a cytotechnologist. The sizes of the nodules, distance from pleura, number of pleural punctures and aspirates, complications encountered, cytological diagnosis, and outcome were recorded. RESULTS: The mean nodule diameter was 9 mm (range 5-10 mm). The average distance from the costal pleura was 31 mm (range 0-88 mm). In 50 of the 55 FNABs, the pleura was crossed once. An average of four aspirates was performed per case. Twenty-five FNABs (45.5%) were adequate for diagnosis (24 malignant and one tuberculosis). In 11 cases, where no definite diagnosis was made following FNAB, the outcome was not affected. In 10 cases, samples were insufficient for diagnosis and the nodules were subsequently diagnosed as malignant. Eight cases were excluded in the final analysis as follow-up details were unavailable. The sensitivity for malignancy and overall accuracy were 67.7 and 78.8%, respectively. Pneumothorax occurred in 29 (52.7%) patients, with five (9.1%) requiring thoracostomy tubes. CONCLUSION: CT-guided FNAB is a useful tool. in the diagnosis and management of small pulmonary nodules, despite the tower diagnostic accuracy and higher complication rate than those of larger pulmonary lesions. (C) 2007 The Royal College of Radiologists. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.4
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