DIAGNOSTIC CONTRIBUTION OF CLOSED NEEDLE PLEURAL BIOPSY – A 10-YEAR RETROSPECTIVE ANALYSIS

J. Bushev, Biljana Noveska-Petrovska, Zoran Karatashev
{"title":"DIAGNOSTIC CONTRIBUTION OF CLOSED NEEDLE PLEURAL BIOPSY – A 10-YEAR RETROSPECTIVE ANALYSIS","authors":"J. Bushev, Biljana Noveska-Petrovska, Zoran Karatashev","doi":"10.35120/medisij010311b","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Determining the etiology of a pleural effusion can present a major problem for the clinician. Diagnostic evaluation of pleural effusions should include relevant history, clinical course, radiographic abnormalities, and take into account the patient’s desire and consent for further invasive investigations. The seventies were dominated by specific pleural effusions, but in the last three decades effusions of malignant etiology have dominated. Despite advances in diagnostics, about 20% of pleural effusions remain etiologically unexplained. Objective: we present data on the diagnostic contribution and complications when using a Ramel‘s needle (Wolf’s set) in investigating the nature of pleural effusions from an etiopathogenetic aspect. Methods: This retrospective study included 284 transparietal closed pleural biopsies performed between January 2011 and December 2020. Local anesthesia with 2% lidocaine was applied to the skin and subcutaneous tissue in all subjects (premedication with 1 mg of atropine or 10 mg of apaurin was sporadically applied); a chest radiograph was taken immediately before and within 4 to 12 hours after the procedure to rule out complications. The diagnostic positivity, accuracy and complication rate of the technique were evaluated. Results: 175 men and 109 women (median age 60 years, range 19–88) underwent transparietal pleural biopsy with a Ramel‘s needle, 96% of pleural effusions were unilateral (53% in the right hemithorax). Pleural tissue was obtained in 98%. The most common histological diagnosis included: malignancy (34.7%), nonspecific inflammation and mesothelial hyperplasia (32.3%), chronic inflammation with fibrosis (23.5%), granulomatous disease (4.3%), normal pleura and striated muscle (5.2%). Microbiological examination was performed in 24 samples (8.4%): Mycobacterium tuberculosis was present in 1 case, Escherichia Coli in one and Candida albicans in another patient. No pathogenic bacteria or fungi were identified in the rest of the examined. The procedure was well tolerated. Complications occurred in 7 (2.4%): pneumothorax in 4 patients (1.4%), vasovagal reaction in 2 cases (0.7%), local hematoma (0.3%). Conclusion: closed (percutaneous, blind) pleural biopsy with a Ramel‘s needle appears to be a simple technique, well tolerated, with a low complication rate and high diagnostic efficiency. Closed pleural biopsy has a relatively high sensitivity in the diagnosis of exudative pleural fluid, especially in tuberculous pleurisy and may provide an alternative technique in clinical practice. It can be applied to any unexplained pleural effusion, in cooperative patients with no coagulation abnormalities, in relation to standard biochemical, microbiological and cytological investigations, especially in hospital units without thoracoscopy. In our series, nonspecific inflammation was the most common histological diagnosis, and repeated biopsies significantly increased the diagnostic contribution.","PeriodicalId":446210,"journal":{"name":"MEDIS – International Journal of Medical Sciences and Research","volume":"37 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-08-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"MEDIS – International Journal of Medical Sciences and Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.35120/medisij010311b","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Determining the etiology of a pleural effusion can present a major problem for the clinician. Diagnostic evaluation of pleural effusions should include relevant history, clinical course, radiographic abnormalities, and take into account the patient’s desire and consent for further invasive investigations. The seventies were dominated by specific pleural effusions, but in the last three decades effusions of malignant etiology have dominated. Despite advances in diagnostics, about 20% of pleural effusions remain etiologically unexplained. Objective: we present data on the diagnostic contribution and complications when using a Ramel‘s needle (Wolf’s set) in investigating the nature of pleural effusions from an etiopathogenetic aspect. Methods: This retrospective study included 284 transparietal closed pleural biopsies performed between January 2011 and December 2020. Local anesthesia with 2% lidocaine was applied to the skin and subcutaneous tissue in all subjects (premedication with 1 mg of atropine or 10 mg of apaurin was sporadically applied); a chest radiograph was taken immediately before and within 4 to 12 hours after the procedure to rule out complications. The diagnostic positivity, accuracy and complication rate of the technique were evaluated. Results: 175 men and 109 women (median age 60 years, range 19–88) underwent transparietal pleural biopsy with a Ramel‘s needle, 96% of pleural effusions were unilateral (53% in the right hemithorax). Pleural tissue was obtained in 98%. The most common histological diagnosis included: malignancy (34.7%), nonspecific inflammation and mesothelial hyperplasia (32.3%), chronic inflammation with fibrosis (23.5%), granulomatous disease (4.3%), normal pleura and striated muscle (5.2%). Microbiological examination was performed in 24 samples (8.4%): Mycobacterium tuberculosis was present in 1 case, Escherichia Coli in one and Candida albicans in another patient. No pathogenic bacteria or fungi were identified in the rest of the examined. The procedure was well tolerated. Complications occurred in 7 (2.4%): pneumothorax in 4 patients (1.4%), vasovagal reaction in 2 cases (0.7%), local hematoma (0.3%). Conclusion: closed (percutaneous, blind) pleural biopsy with a Ramel‘s needle appears to be a simple technique, well tolerated, with a low complication rate and high diagnostic efficiency. Closed pleural biopsy has a relatively high sensitivity in the diagnosis of exudative pleural fluid, especially in tuberculous pleurisy and may provide an alternative technique in clinical practice. It can be applied to any unexplained pleural effusion, in cooperative patients with no coagulation abnormalities, in relation to standard biochemical, microbiological and cytological investigations, especially in hospital units without thoracoscopy. In our series, nonspecific inflammation was the most common histological diagnosis, and repeated biopsies significantly increased the diagnostic contribution.
闭式胸膜穿刺活检的诊断价值——10年回顾性分析
确定胸腔积液的病因是临床医生面临的一个主要问题。胸膜积液的诊断评估应包括相关病史、临床病程、影像学异常,并考虑患者希望并同意进一步有创检查。七十年代以特殊的胸腔积液为主,但在过去的三十年中,恶性病因的积液占主导地位。尽管诊断技术有所进步,但仍有大约20%的胸腔积液病因不明。目的:我们提出的数据诊断贡献和并发症时,使用拉梅尔针(沃尔夫组)调查从发病方面的性质胸腔积液。方法:回顾性研究包括2011年1月至2020年12月期间进行的284例经顶叶闭式胸膜活检。2%利多卡因局部麻醉于所有受试者的皮肤和皮下组织(用药前偶用1mg阿托品或10mg阿普林);在手术前和手术后4到12小时内拍了胸片,以排除并发症。评价该技术的诊断阳性率、准确性和并发症发生率。结果:175名男性和109名女性(中位年龄60岁,范围19-88岁)接受了Ramel针经胸膜活检,96%的胸腔积液是单侧的(53%在右半胸)。胸膜组织占98%。最常见的组织学诊断包括:恶性肿瘤(34.7%)、非特异性炎症和间皮增生(32.3%)、慢性炎症伴纤维化(23.5%)、肉芽肿性疾病(4.3%)、胸膜和横纹肌正常(5.2%)。24份标本(8.4%)进行微生物学检查:结核分枝杆菌1例,大肠杆菌1例,白色念珠菌1例。在其余的检查中没有发现致病菌或真菌。这个手术是可以接受的。并发症7例(2.4%),其中气胸4例(1.4%),血管迷走神经反应2例(0.7%),局部血肿(0.3%)。结论:Ramel 's针闭式(经皮、盲)胸膜活检是一种简便、耐受性好、并发症发生率低、诊断效率高的方法。闭式胸膜活检在诊断渗出性胸膜液,特别是结核性胸膜炎方面具有相对较高的敏感性,可能为临床实践提供一种替代技术。它可以应用于任何不明原因的胸腔积液,在没有凝血异常的合作患者中,与标准生化、微生物和细胞学检查有关,特别是在没有胸腔镜的医院单位。在我们的研究中,非特异性炎症是最常见的组织学诊断,反复活检显著增加了诊断的贡献。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信