Feasibility and safety of interventional radiology-guided biopsy for esophageal stenosis.

IF 2.6 3区 医学
Gang Zhou, Xiaolong Ding, Meng Wang, Yalin Tong, Yaozhen Ma, Meipan Yin, Chunxia Li, Gang Wu
{"title":"Feasibility and safety of interventional radiology-guided biopsy for esophageal stenosis.","authors":"Gang Zhou, Xiaolong Ding, Meng Wang, Yalin Tong, Yaozhen Ma, Meipan Yin, Chunxia Li, Gang Wu","doi":"10.1093/dote/doaf005","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Endoscopic clamp biopsy is generally performed to confirm the pathological diagnosis of esophageal stenosis. However, it might be challenging in patients with severe esophageal stenosis. Hence, we aimed to investigate the feasibility and safety of interventional radiology-guided clamp biopsy under fluoroscopy for diagnosing esophageal stenosis.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The clinical data of 81 patients aged 39-89 (mean age 67.4 ± 10.5) years with esophageal stenosis whose pathological tissues were obtained by interventional radiology-guided forceps biopsy at our treatment center were retrospectively analyzed; 35.8% (29/81) patients had esophageal space-occupying stenosis and 64.2% (52/81) had esophagogastric anastomotic stenosis. The detection rate of esophageal stenosis, and operation-related complications were analyzed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>About 75.3% (61/81) patients could not tolerate or refused endoscopic examination; the remaining 24.7% (20/81) underwent endoscopic examination, but their pathological specimens could not be obtained through the stenosis segment. The technical success rate of interventional radiology-guided clamp biopsy was 100%, and the mean duration of operation was 7.8 ± 4.2 minutes. No serious operation-related complications were observed. Histological examination showed that 35.8% (29/81) patients had malignant tumor and 64.2% (52/81) had benign tumor. Interventional radiology-guided biopsy had a better detection rate compared with gastroscopic biopsy (P < 0.001, χ2 = 64.64).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Interventional radiology-guided clamp biopsy is a new esophageal biopsy technique that is minimally invasive, safe, and rapid, with a low rate of missed diagnosis and low requirements regarding the patients' condition. Thus, it is a complementary or auxiliary diagnostic method in cases where the traditional endoscopic approach fails.</p>","PeriodicalId":54277,"journal":{"name":"Diseases of the Esophagus","volume":"38 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Diseases of the Esophagus","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/dote/doaf005","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Endoscopic clamp biopsy is generally performed to confirm the pathological diagnosis of esophageal stenosis. However, it might be challenging in patients with severe esophageal stenosis. Hence, we aimed to investigate the feasibility and safety of interventional radiology-guided clamp biopsy under fluoroscopy for diagnosing esophageal stenosis.

Methods: The clinical data of 81 patients aged 39-89 (mean age 67.4 ± 10.5) years with esophageal stenosis whose pathological tissues were obtained by interventional radiology-guided forceps biopsy at our treatment center were retrospectively analyzed; 35.8% (29/81) patients had esophageal space-occupying stenosis and 64.2% (52/81) had esophagogastric anastomotic stenosis. The detection rate of esophageal stenosis, and operation-related complications were analyzed.

Results: About 75.3% (61/81) patients could not tolerate or refused endoscopic examination; the remaining 24.7% (20/81) underwent endoscopic examination, but their pathological specimens could not be obtained through the stenosis segment. The technical success rate of interventional radiology-guided clamp biopsy was 100%, and the mean duration of operation was 7.8 ± 4.2 minutes. No serious operation-related complications were observed. Histological examination showed that 35.8% (29/81) patients had malignant tumor and 64.2% (52/81) had benign tumor. Interventional radiology-guided biopsy had a better detection rate compared with gastroscopic biopsy (P < 0.001, χ2 = 64.64).

Conclusion: Interventional radiology-guided clamp biopsy is a new esophageal biopsy technique that is minimally invasive, safe, and rapid, with a low rate of missed diagnosis and low requirements regarding the patients' condition. Thus, it is a complementary or auxiliary diagnostic method in cases where the traditional endoscopic approach fails.

介入放射引导下食管狭窄活检的可行性和安全性。
背景:内窥镜钳夹活检一般用于确诊食管狭窄。然而,这对于严重食管狭窄的患者来说可能具有挑战性。因此,我们旨在研究在透视下进行介入放射学引导的钳夹活检术诊断食管狭窄的可行性和安全性:回顾性分析了本治疗中心 81 例年龄在 39-89 岁(平均年龄为 67.4 ± 10.5)的食管狭窄患者的临床资料,这些患者均在介入放射学引导下通过钳活检获得了病理组织;35.8%(29/81)的患者为食管占位性狭窄,64.2%(52/81)的患者为食管胃吻合口狭窄。对食管狭窄的检出率和手术相关并发症进行了分析:结果:约 75.3%(61/81)的患者不能耐受或拒绝内镜检查;其余 24.7%(20/81)的患者接受了内镜检查,但其病理标本无法通过狭窄段获得。介入放射学引导钳夹活检的技术成功率为100%,平均手术时间为(7.8±4.2)分钟。未发现与手术相关的严重并发症。组织学检查显示,35.8%(29/81)的患者患有恶性肿瘤,64.2%(52/81)的患者患有良性肿瘤。与胃镜活检相比,介入放射学引导下活检的检出率更高(P 结论:介入放射学引导下活检的检出率高于胃镜活检:介入放射学引导钳夹活检是一种新型食管活检技术,具有微创、安全、快速、漏诊率低、对患者病情要求低等特点。因此,在传统内窥镜方法失败的病例中,它是一种补充或辅助诊断方法。
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
Diseases of the Esophagus
Diseases of the Esophagus Medicine-Gastroenterology
自引率
7.70%
发文量
568
期刊介绍: Diseases of the Esophagus covers all aspects of the esophagus - etiology, investigation and diagnosis, and both medical and surgical treatment.
×
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