Cytomorphological Study of Fluid Aspirates: Comparison between Conventional Cytology Smears and Cell Blocks

Q4 Medicine
Rajan S. Bindu, Pratiksha V. Sharma, Rashmi G. Sawant, Anand A. Bhosale
{"title":"Cytomorphological Study of Fluid Aspirates: Comparison between Conventional Cytology Smears and Cell Blocks","authors":"Rajan S. Bindu, Pratiksha V. Sharma, Rashmi G. Sawant, Anand A. Bhosale","doi":"10.4103/mjdrdypu.mjdrdypu_243_23","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT\n \n \n \n Conventional cytology smear method and cell block method are two important methods used for cytological diagnosis. Limitations of conventional smears have to be dealt with daily while reporting cytology. Despite the many advantages of the cell block method, it has been an underestimated diagnostic tool. The purpose of this study is to compare conventional smears and cell block preparations with different parameters and find out which one is more effective in evaluating body fluids.\n \n \n \n Sixty body fluids were studied by the conventional smear method and cell block method. Data were tabulated and analyzed.\n \n \n \n The cell block method showed a significant increase in cellularity (83.3%) compared to the conventional method (50%) [P = 0.0001, significant]. The limitation of low cellularity was significantly reduced by the cell block method (8.3%) as compared to conventional smears (33.3%) [P = 0.0007, significant]. Morphology preservation was significantly more by cell block method (95%) versus conventional smears (60%) [P = 0.00001, significant]. The yield of malignancy increased by 3.33% in the present study. Suspicious cases on conventional smears could be confidently segregated as malignant or benign by the cell block method.\n \n \n \n The cell block technique should be routinely used along with conventional smears to improve diagnostic accuracy and resolve diagnostic dilemmas on conventional smears.\n","PeriodicalId":18412,"journal":{"name":"Medical Journal of Dr. D.Y. Patil Vidyapeeth","volume":"5 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medical Journal of Dr. D.Y. Patil Vidyapeeth","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/mjdrdypu.mjdrdypu_243_23","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

ABSTRACT Conventional cytology smear method and cell block method are two important methods used for cytological diagnosis. Limitations of conventional smears have to be dealt with daily while reporting cytology. Despite the many advantages of the cell block method, it has been an underestimated diagnostic tool. The purpose of this study is to compare conventional smears and cell block preparations with different parameters and find out which one is more effective in evaluating body fluids. Sixty body fluids were studied by the conventional smear method and cell block method. Data were tabulated and analyzed. The cell block method showed a significant increase in cellularity (83.3%) compared to the conventional method (50%) [P = 0.0001, significant]. The limitation of low cellularity was significantly reduced by the cell block method (8.3%) as compared to conventional smears (33.3%) [P = 0.0007, significant]. Morphology preservation was significantly more by cell block method (95%) versus conventional smears (60%) [P = 0.00001, significant]. The yield of malignancy increased by 3.33% in the present study. Suspicious cases on conventional smears could be confidently segregated as malignant or benign by the cell block method. The cell block technique should be routinely used along with conventional smears to improve diagnostic accuracy and resolve diagnostic dilemmas on conventional smears.
吸出液的细胞形态学研究:传统细胞学涂片与细胞块的比较
摘要 传统细胞学涂片法和细胞块法是细胞学诊断的两种重要方法。传统涂片法的局限性必须在日常细胞学报告中加以解决。尽管细胞阻滞法有很多优点,但它一直是一种被低估的诊断工具。本研究的目的是比较传统涂片和细胞块制备法的不同参数,找出哪种方法在评估体液方面更有效。 我们采用传统涂片法和细胞块法对 60 种体液进行了研究。对数据进行了列表和分析。 与传统方法(50%)相比,细胞块法显示细胞度(83.3%)显著增加[P = 0.0001,显著]。与传统涂片法(33.3%)相比,细胞块法(8.3%)明显降低了低细胞度的局限性[P = 0.0007,差异有显著性]。细胞块法(95%)与传统涂片法(60%)相比,形态保留率明显更高[P = 0.00001,差异有显著性]。在本研究中,恶性肿瘤的检出率增加了 3.33%。传统涂片上的可疑病例可通过细胞阻断法确定是恶性还是良性。 细胞阻滞技术应与常规涂片一起常规使用,以提高诊断的准确性并解决常规涂片上的诊断难题。
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
CiteScore
0.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
221
审稿时长
43 weeks
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信