Acta cytologica · 2003
Splenic fine needle aspiration and core biopsy. A review of 49 cases.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Lal Aseem, Ariga Reshma, Gattuso Paolo, Nemcek Albert A, Nayar Ritu
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To analyze the authors' experience with splenic fine needle aspiration (sFNA) and splenic core biopsy (sCB) and to examine their roles in patients with splenomegaly or splenic mass lesions.
STUDY DESIGN: A total of 56 sFNAs and/or sCBs were performed on 49 patients for neoplastic and nonneoplastic indications. Both sFNAs and sCBs were performed in 21 (38%) cases, sFNAs alone in 26 (46%) and sCBs only in 9 (16%). Cytologic findings were evaluated for specimen adequacy, diagnosis and use of ancillary techniques. Cytologic diagnosis was compared with histology on subsequent splenectomy or bone marrow biopsy, when available.
RESULTS: There were a total of 33 males and 16 females (aged 30-82 years) in the study. Radiologic findings were single or multiple masses (42), fluid collection (3) or diffuse splenomegaly (4). The cytologic diagnosis was neoplastic process in 12 (25%), nonneoplastic in 32 (65%) and inadequate specimen in 5 (10%). The procedure was adequate for diagnosis in 44 (90%) patients. Cytologic diagnosis correlated with subsequent histology in all cases where tissue diagnosis was available. Major complications occurred in 3 (6%) patients, including hemorrhage, pseudoaneurysm and hypotension. Five other patients (10%) had minor complications. The number of passes, inclusion of sCB and repeat procedures were not associated with an increased risk of complications.
CONCLUSION: sFNA and sCB have excellent diagnostic accuracy in both neoplastic and nonneoplastic splenic disorders. While the overall complication rate is significant, major complications of the procedure are uncommon.
STUDY DESIGN: A total of 56 sFNAs and/or sCBs were performed on 49 patients for neoplastic and nonneoplastic indications. Both sFNAs and sCBs were performed in 21 (38%) cases, sFNAs alone in 26 (46%) and sCBs only in 9 (16%). Cytologic findings were evaluated for specimen adequacy, diagnosis and use of ancillary techniques. Cytologic diagnosis was compared with histology on subsequent splenectomy or bone marrow biopsy, when available.
RESULTS: There were a total of 33 males and 16 females (aged 30-82 years) in the study. Radiologic findings were single or multiple masses (42), fluid collection (3) or diffuse splenomegaly (4). The cytologic diagnosis was neoplastic process in 12 (25%), nonneoplastic in 32 (65%) and inadequate specimen in 5 (10%). The procedure was adequate for diagnosis in 44 (90%) patients. Cytologic diagnosis correlated with subsequent histology in all cases where tissue diagnosis was available. Major complications occurred in 3 (6%) patients, including hemorrhage, pseudoaneurysm and hypotension. Five other patients (10%) had minor complications. The number of passes, inclusion of sCB and repeat procedures were not associated with an increased risk of complications.
CONCLUSION: sFNA and sCB have excellent diagnostic accuracy in both neoplastic and nonneoplastic splenic disorders. While the overall complication rate is significant, major complications of the procedure are uncommon.