MedElevator
Войти в исследования Journal of endourology · 2013
Ureteroscopic biopsy of upper tract urothelial carcinoma: comparison of basket and forceps.
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.
Kleinmann Nir, Healy Kelly A, Hubosky Scott G, Margel David, Bibbo Marluce, Bagley Demetrius H
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To compare two different biopsy devices for upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC) and evaluate the pathologic result obtained by these devices.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: From January 2008 to December 2010, 414 ureteroscopies were performed and 504 biopsies were taken for evaluation of UTUC. Two biopsy devices were compared: 2.4F stainless steel flat wire basket and 3F cup biopsy forceps. The effect of the biopsy device on obtaining an adequate pathologic specimen was evaluated using univariate and multivariate binary logistic regression analysis. We also investigated whether tumor grade determination was affected by the biopsy device among patients with a diagnostic biopsy.
RESULTS: Diagnosis was successful in 63% and 94% in the forceps and basket groups, respectively (P < 0.0001). Among biopsies with a definite diagnosis of UTUC, specific grade was determined in 80% and 93% in the forceps and basket groups, respectively (P = 0.033). In subgroup analysis of tumors larger than 10 mm in diameter, diagnosis was obtained in 80% and 94% in the forceps and basket groups, respectively (P = 0.037). Cytologic evaluation was found to increase diagnostic rates.
CONCLUSIONS: The stainless steel flat wire basket was shown to be superior to the 3F cup biopsy forceps in terms of obtaining tissue diagnosis and providing specific grade.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: From January 2008 to December 2010, 414 ureteroscopies were performed and 504 biopsies were taken for evaluation of UTUC. Two biopsy devices were compared: 2.4F stainless steel flat wire basket and 3F cup biopsy forceps. The effect of the biopsy device on obtaining an adequate pathologic specimen was evaluated using univariate and multivariate binary logistic regression analysis. We also investigated whether tumor grade determination was affected by the biopsy device among patients with a diagnostic biopsy.
RESULTS: Diagnosis was successful in 63% and 94% in the forceps and basket groups, respectively (P < 0.0001). Among biopsies with a definite diagnosis of UTUC, specific grade was determined in 80% and 93% in the forceps and basket groups, respectively (P = 0.033). In subgroup analysis of tumors larger than 10 mm in diameter, diagnosis was obtained in 80% and 94% in the forceps and basket groups, respectively (P = 0.037). Cytologic evaluation was found to increase diagnostic rates.
CONCLUSIONS: The stainless steel flat wire basket was shown to be superior to the 3F cup biopsy forceps in terms of obtaining tissue diagnosis and providing specific grade.