Endoscopic transbronchial needle aspiration in sampling mediastinal lesions

IF 1 Q4 RESPIRATORY SYSTEM Egyptian Journal of Bronchology Pub Date : 2019-07-01 DOI:10.4103/ejb.ejb_96_18
M. Ibrahim, Aida M. Yousef, M. Hantera, Magda Ahmed, S. A. Abd-Elhafez
{"title":"Endoscopic transbronchial needle aspiration in sampling mediastinal lesions","authors":"M. Ibrahim, Aida M. Yousef, M. Hantera, Magda Ahmed, S. A. Abd-Elhafez","doi":"10.4103/ejb.ejb_96_18","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Context Endoscopy plays an integral part in the evaluation of mediastinum. Transbronchial sampling can be done conventionally or guided with endobronchial ultrasonography (EBUS), which is a new tool that allows seeing beyond the airway. Following its invention, the use of conventional sampling has declined. Aims To evaluate the efficacy of EBUS-transbronchial needle aspiration (TBNA) in sampling mediastinal lesions after conventionally negative TBNA result and to compare EBUS-TBNA sampling in subcarinal and hilar sites versus paratracheal sites regarding diagnostic yield. Settings and design A prospective evaluation study was done. Patients and methods The study enrolled 52 patients with undiagnosed mediastinal lymphadenopathy or lesions. Subcarinal lesions were sampled by both conventional TBNA and EBUS-TBNA sampling (after negative conventional sampling results), and paratracheal lesions were sampled only with EBUS. Statistical analysis used Data were analyzed to test statistical significant difference between groups. Quantitative data were presented as mean±SD, and Student t test was used to compare between two groups. Results No complications were reported. Conventional subcarinal TBNA sampling was done in 37 cases, where sufficient sampling was seen in 67.6% of cases, was diagnostic in 16.2% and had sensitivity of 20%. EBUS-TBNA was done in 22 cases after negative conventional sampling result, and in additional 15 cases as an initial procedure during the study. EBUS diagnosed 89.2% of cases, with sensitivity of 97.1%. Diagnostic percent in EBUS targeting subcarinal/hilar sites was 81.8% whereas was 100% in paratracheal EBUS sampling. Conclusion Both modalities of sampling are safe. Diagnostic value of EBUS-TBNA exceeded much more than conventional sampling.","PeriodicalId":34128,"journal":{"name":"Egyptian Journal of Bronchology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Egyptian Journal of Bronchology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/ejb.ejb_96_18","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"RESPIRATORY SYSTEM","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Context Endoscopy plays an integral part in the evaluation of mediastinum. Transbronchial sampling can be done conventionally or guided with endobronchial ultrasonography (EBUS), which is a new tool that allows seeing beyond the airway. Following its invention, the use of conventional sampling has declined. Aims To evaluate the efficacy of EBUS-transbronchial needle aspiration (TBNA) in sampling mediastinal lesions after conventionally negative TBNA result and to compare EBUS-TBNA sampling in subcarinal and hilar sites versus paratracheal sites regarding diagnostic yield. Settings and design A prospective evaluation study was done. Patients and methods The study enrolled 52 patients with undiagnosed mediastinal lymphadenopathy or lesions. Subcarinal lesions were sampled by both conventional TBNA and EBUS-TBNA sampling (after negative conventional sampling results), and paratracheal lesions were sampled only with EBUS. Statistical analysis used Data were analyzed to test statistical significant difference between groups. Quantitative data were presented as mean±SD, and Student t test was used to compare between two groups. Results No complications were reported. Conventional subcarinal TBNA sampling was done in 37 cases, where sufficient sampling was seen in 67.6% of cases, was diagnostic in 16.2% and had sensitivity of 20%. EBUS-TBNA was done in 22 cases after negative conventional sampling result, and in additional 15 cases as an initial procedure during the study. EBUS diagnosed 89.2% of cases, with sensitivity of 97.1%. Diagnostic percent in EBUS targeting subcarinal/hilar sites was 81.8% whereas was 100% in paratracheal EBUS sampling. Conclusion Both modalities of sampling are safe. Diagnostic value of EBUS-TBNA exceeded much more than conventional sampling.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
内镜下经支气管针抽吸纵隔病变
内窥镜检查在纵隔的评估中起着不可或缺的作用。经支气管取样可以常规进行,也可以在支气管内超声检查(EBUS)的引导下进行,这是一种新的工具,可以看到气道以外的情况。在其发明之后,传统抽样的使用有所下降。目的评价经支气管针吸(ebus -经支气管针吸(TBNA))在常规TBNA结果阴性的纵隔病变取样中的效果,并比较EBUS-TBNA在隆突下和肺门部位与气管旁部位取样的诊断率。设定与设计进行前瞻性评价研究。患者和方法本研究纳入52例未确诊的纵隔淋巴结病或病变患者。隆突下病变采用常规TBNA和EBUS-TBNA采样(常规采样结果为阴性后),气管旁病变仅采用EBUS采样。统计学分析采用数据分析,检验组间差异有统计学意义。定量资料以mean±SD表示,两组间比较采用Student t检验。结果无并发症发生。37例进行了常规隆突下TBNA取样,67.6%的病例有充分取样,16.2%的病例有诊断,敏感性为20%。在常规取样结果为阴性的22例中进行了EBUS-TBNA,另外15例作为研究的初始程序。EBUS诊断率为89.2%,敏感性为97.1%。针对隆突下/肺门部位的EBUS的诊断率为81.8%,而气管旁EBUS采样的诊断率为100%。结论两种取样方式都是安全的。EBUS-TBNA的诊断价值远远超过常规采样。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Egyptian Journal of Bronchology
Egyptian Journal of Bronchology RESPIRATORY SYSTEM-
自引率
7.70%
发文量
56
审稿时长
9 weeks
期刊最新文献
Assessment of atypical pneumonia by chest ultrasonography Safety and efficacy of high flow nasal canula in patients with mild hypercapnia Impact of comorbid pulmonary disease on COVID-19 disease severity and outcome: a retrospective cohort study Imaging changes of oil aspiration over time in children: a case series Diagnostic yield of combined ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration and core needle biopsy versus either technique alone in peripheral lung and pleural lesions
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1