Comparison of Accuracy and Safety of Computed Tomography Guided and Unguided Transthoracic Fine Needle Aspiration Biopsy in Diagnosis of Lung Lesions

ISSN: 00045772
5Citations
Citations of this article
4Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Objective : To study the accuracy and safety of CT guided and unguided transthoracic fine needle aspiration biopsy in diagnosis of lung lesions. Method : The study was carried out in 79 hospitalised patients during the period 1997-1999. In 52 patients having peripheral and large sized lung lesion (> 5 cm in diameter) in chest X-ray unguided FNAB was performed and in the rest 27 patients having relatively central and small sized lesion (< 5 cm). CT guided FNAB was performed. Also in 15 patients having two times failed unguided aspiration, CT guided FNAB was performed. Results : The diagnostic yield of unguided aspiration was 71.1 % (37 out of 52). Out of 37 patients 29 (78.3 %) had malignant lesion and eight (21.6 %) non-malignant lesion. Sensitivity and specificity for detecting malignancy was 90.6 % and 100 % respectively. Complications were seen in 10 patients (19.3 %). Diagnostic yield of CT guided FNAB was 95.2 % (40 out of 42), 33 (82.5 %) had malignant lesion, seven (17.5 %) had benign lesion. Sensitivity and specificity for detecting malignancy was 97.1 % and 100 % respectively. Minor complications were seen in three patients (7.1 %). Conclusion : It was concluded that CT guided FNAB is a safe, versatile and accurate procedure with a strong impact on the diagnostic protocol of pulmonary with a strong impact on the diagnostic protocol of pulmonary pathology and is recommended to he used when the type, size or position of the lesion make unguided needle aspiration unreliable.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Dash, B. K., & Tripathy, S. K. (2001). Comparison of Accuracy and Safety of Computed Tomography Guided and Unguided Transthoracic Fine Needle Aspiration Biopsy in Diagnosis of Lung Lesions. Journal of Association of Physicians of India, 49(JUNE), 626–629.

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free