World journal of gastroenterology · 2017
Incidents and adverse events of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration for pancreatic cystic lesions.
Сравнительное исследованиеОценочное 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.
Du Chen, Chai Ning-Li, Linghu En-Qiang, Li Hui-Kai, Sun Yu-Fa, Xu Wei, Wang Xiang-Dong, Tang Ping, Yang Jing
Аннотация
AIM: To evaluate the diagnostic value and safety mainly regarding incidents of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) for pancreatic cystic lesions (PCLs).
METHODS: A total of 150 consecutive patients with suspected PCLs were prospectively enrolled from April 2015 to November 2016. We finally enrolled 140 patients undergoing EUS-FNA. We compared the diagnostic accuracy of EUS-FNA and pathological diagnosis, which is regarded as the gold standard, for PCLs. Patients undergoing EUS-FNA at least 1 wk preoperatively were monitored for incidents and adverse events to evaluate its safety.
RESULTS: There were 88 (62.9%) women and 52 (37.1%) men among 140 patients, with a mean age of 50.1 (± 15.4) years. There were 67 cysts located in the head/uncinate of the pancreas and 67 in the body/tail, and 6 patients had at least 1 cyst in the pancreas. There were 75 patients undergoing surgery and 55 undergoing EUS-FNA with interval at least 1 wk before other operations, with 3 patients undergoing the procedure twice. The accuracy of EUS-FNA in differentiating benign and malignant lesions was 97.3% (73/75), while the accuracy of characterizing PCL subtype was 84.0% (63/75). The incident rate was 37.9% (22/58), whereas only 1 AE was observed in 58 cases.
CONCLUSION: EUS-FNA is effective and safe for diagnosis of PCLs, however procedure-related incidents are common. Caution should be taken in patients undergoing EUS-FNA.
METHODS: A total of 150 consecutive patients with suspected PCLs were prospectively enrolled from April 2015 to November 2016. We finally enrolled 140 patients undergoing EUS-FNA. We compared the diagnostic accuracy of EUS-FNA and pathological diagnosis, which is regarded as the gold standard, for PCLs. Patients undergoing EUS-FNA at least 1 wk preoperatively were monitored for incidents and adverse events to evaluate its safety.
RESULTS: There were 88 (62.9%) women and 52 (37.1%) men among 140 patients, with a mean age of 50.1 (± 15.4) years. There were 67 cysts located in the head/uncinate of the pancreas and 67 in the body/tail, and 6 patients had at least 1 cyst in the pancreas. There were 75 patients undergoing surgery and 55 undergoing EUS-FNA with interval at least 1 wk before other operations, with 3 patients undergoing the procedure twice. The accuracy of EUS-FNA in differentiating benign and malignant lesions was 97.3% (73/75), while the accuracy of characterizing PCL subtype was 84.0% (63/75). The incident rate was 37.9% (22/58), whereas only 1 AE was observed in 58 cases.
CONCLUSION: EUS-FNA is effective and safe for diagnosis of PCLs, however procedure-related incidents are common. Caution should be taken in patients undergoing EUS-FNA.