The clinical respiratory journal · 2019
Diagnosis of peripheral pulmonary lesions using endobronchial ultrasonography with a guide sheath and computed tomography guided transthoracic needle aspiration.
СтатьяНазвание 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.
Zhu Jun, Gu Ye
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Peripheral pulmonary lesions (PPL) are difficult to diagnose. We analysed the diagnostic values and risks of endobronchial ultrasonography with a guide sheath (EBUS-GS) and computed tomography-guided transthoracic needle aspiration (CT-TTNA) in diagnosing PPL.
METHODS: We collected 250 cases received EBUS-GS examination, and 279 cases received CT-TTNA examination. We analysed the diagnosis results and the complications of each operation and determined the relevant indications.
RESULTS: Biopsy was successful in 239 cases (95.6%) using EBUS-GS and in 279 cases (100%) using CT-TTNA. Lesions were smaller than or equal to 30 mm for biopsy using EBUS-GS in 60.7% of the cases. The distances of lesions from the chest wall were greater than 80 mm for EBUS-GS examination in 89.1% of the cases. The diagnostic rate of EBUS-GS was 78.2%, including 41.8% (100 cases) malignant diseases. EBUS-GS is a highly safe method. The distances of lesions from the chest wall were no greater than 80 mm for CT-TTNA examination in 90.0% of the cases. The diagnosis rate using CT-TTNA was 94.6%, including 90.0% (251 cases) malignant diseases. For CT-TTNA, there is a high chance of complications such as pneumothorax and intrapulmonary hemorrhage.
CONCLUSION: EBUS-GS and CT-TTNA each have their own limitations. EBUS-GS has a slightly lower diagnostic rate but higher safety, while CT-TTNA has a higher diagnostic rate but requires attention to complications. For lesions 80 mm more from the chest wall, we recommend EBUS-GS. For lesions 80 mm from or closer to the chest wall, we recommend CT-TTNA.
METHODS: We collected 250 cases received EBUS-GS examination, and 279 cases received CT-TTNA examination. We analysed the diagnosis results and the complications of each operation and determined the relevant indications.
RESULTS: Biopsy was successful in 239 cases (95.6%) using EBUS-GS and in 279 cases (100%) using CT-TTNA. Lesions were smaller than or equal to 30 mm for biopsy using EBUS-GS in 60.7% of the cases. The distances of lesions from the chest wall were greater than 80 mm for EBUS-GS examination in 89.1% of the cases. The diagnostic rate of EBUS-GS was 78.2%, including 41.8% (100 cases) malignant diseases. EBUS-GS is a highly safe method. The distances of lesions from the chest wall were no greater than 80 mm for CT-TTNA examination in 90.0% of the cases. The diagnosis rate using CT-TTNA was 94.6%, including 90.0% (251 cases) malignant diseases. For CT-TTNA, there is a high chance of complications such as pneumothorax and intrapulmonary hemorrhage.
CONCLUSION: EBUS-GS and CT-TTNA each have their own limitations. EBUS-GS has a slightly lower diagnostic rate but higher safety, while CT-TTNA has a higher diagnostic rate but requires attention to complications. For lesions 80 mm more from the chest wall, we recommend EBUS-GS. For lesions 80 mm from or closer to the chest wall, we recommend CT-TTNA.