Surgical endoscopy · 2016
Tissue diagnosis of GI subepithelial tumor only through Trucut biopsy under a forward-viewing endoscope: applicability as newer diagnostic modality.
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.
Ko Weon Jin, Song Ga Won, Hahm Ki Baik, Hong Sung Pyo, Cho Joo Young, Cho Jun-Hyung, Jin So Young
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Trucut biopsy (TCB) has been proposed to overcome the limitations of endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS)-guided fine-needle aspiration for the pathologic diagnosis of upper gastrointestinal (GI) subepithelial tumor (SET); however, it can be difficult to perform because the Trucut biopsy needle is very stiff. Although technical failures have been reported with the use of TCB, recently the forward-viewing echoendoscope showed a high diagnostic accuracy. We hypothesized that TCB under a conventional forward-viewing endoscope can be applied with higher yield of tissue diagnosis.
METHODS: To evaluate the feasibility of TCB under a forward-looking endoscopy without cumbersome EUS guidance, we introduced a 19-gauge TCB needle into the working channel of a conventional upper endoscope in 27 patients with GI SET to make tissue diagnosis. Prospectively collected data were analyzed, including technical success rate, pathologic result, and adverse events.
RESULTS: Twenty-seven patients with GI SET (18 esophageal tumors and nine gastric tumors) underwent TCB under a forward-looking endoscope. All procedures were performed safely without any TCB-related complications. Subsequently, histopathology examination revealed gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) in three cases and leiomyomas in 21 cases. Histologic assessment was completed in 24 out of 27 patients (88.9 %) because tissue obtained from three patients, whose tumors were located in the stomach, was not sufficient for the pathologic diagnosis.
CONCLUSIONS: TCB using a conventional forward-viewing endoscope without EUS guidance provided an excellent pathologic diagnosis of upper GI SET.
METHODS: To evaluate the feasibility of TCB under a forward-looking endoscopy without cumbersome EUS guidance, we introduced a 19-gauge TCB needle into the working channel of a conventional upper endoscope in 27 patients with GI SET to make tissue diagnosis. Prospectively collected data were analyzed, including technical success rate, pathologic result, and adverse events.
RESULTS: Twenty-seven patients with GI SET (18 esophageal tumors and nine gastric tumors) underwent TCB under a forward-looking endoscope. All procedures were performed safely without any TCB-related complications. Subsequently, histopathology examination revealed gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) in three cases and leiomyomas in 21 cases. Histologic assessment was completed in 24 out of 27 patients (88.9 %) because tissue obtained from three patients, whose tumors were located in the stomach, was not sufficient for the pathologic diagnosis.
CONCLUSIONS: TCB using a conventional forward-viewing endoscope without EUS guidance provided an excellent pathologic diagnosis of upper GI SET.