Xpert 检验用于诊断颌面部结核病的分析。

IF 0.8 Q4 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE
Journal of Maxillofacial & Oral Surgery Pub Date : 2023-09-01 Epub Date: 2021-09-24 DOI:10.1007/s12663-021-01645-7
Richik Tripathi, Nidhi Singh, Rahul Agrawal, Akhilesh Chandra, Rathindra Bera, Mital R Asodariya
{"title":"Xpert 检验用于诊断颌面部结核病的分析。","authors":"Richik Tripathi, Nidhi Singh, Rahul Agrawal, Akhilesh Chandra, Rathindra Bera, Mital R Asodariya","doi":"10.1007/s12663-021-01645-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Maxillofacial tuberculosis is a diagnostic challenge for surgeons. The aim of this study was to present a detailed analysis of Xpert test in diagnosing maxillofacial tuberculosis and to analyse the accuracy of Xpert test results for various tissues of maxillofacial region.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>In this cross-sectional study, patients were selected randomly from outpatient department. The patients who had clinical picture and differential diagnosis highly suggestive of maxillofacial tuberculosis were included. Patients were divided into three different groups depending upon the site of involvement. The samples collected from the patients were further subdivided depending upon the type of specimen. Patients were screened first by routine tests, and the negative cases were followed by Xpert test for tuberculosis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 54 patients were enrolled in the study, 13 patients were found to be positive for maxillofacial tuberculosis on routine screening tests for tuberculosis, and 41 tested negative on routine test and were evaluated further through Xpert test. Specimens from bone (<i>n</i>12), soft tissue and skin biopsy (<i>n</i>15) and aspirates from lymph nodes (<i>n</i>14) were obtained and tested. Twenty-one samples were found to be positive, and 20 were negative upon Xpert testing. There was a statistically significant difference seen between the test groups (<i>p</i> < 0.01) with higher frequency of negative results in routine test. The <i>p</i> value for various specimens containing pus, biopsies and aspirates was 0.045, 0.023 and 0.067, respectively.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Xpert test is more accurate when compared to routine test for diagnosing maxillofacial tuberculosis. Although accuracy of Xpert test is better for pus and biopsy samples in the specimens from bone and soft tissue, it gives poor accuracy for aspirated cells. The aspirates from lymph nodes were more susceptible for false negative test.</p>","PeriodicalId":47495,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Maxillofacial & Oral Surgery","volume":"22 3","pages":"533-537"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10390446/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"An Analysis of Xpert Test for Diagnosing Maxillofacial Tuberculosis.\",\"authors\":\"Richik Tripathi, Nidhi Singh, Rahul Agrawal, Akhilesh Chandra, Rathindra Bera, Mital R Asodariya\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s12663-021-01645-7\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Maxillofacial tuberculosis is a diagnostic challenge for surgeons. The aim of this study was to present a detailed analysis of Xpert test in diagnosing maxillofacial tuberculosis and to analyse the accuracy of Xpert test results for various tissues of maxillofacial region.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>In this cross-sectional study, patients were selected randomly from outpatient department. The patients who had clinical picture and differential diagnosis highly suggestive of maxillofacial tuberculosis were included. Patients were divided into three different groups depending upon the site of involvement. The samples collected from the patients were further subdivided depending upon the type of specimen. Patients were screened first by routine tests, and the negative cases were followed by Xpert test for tuberculosis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 54 patients were enrolled in the study, 13 patients were found to be positive for maxillofacial tuberculosis on routine screening tests for tuberculosis, and 41 tested negative on routine test and were evaluated further through Xpert test. Specimens from bone (<i>n</i>12), soft tissue and skin biopsy (<i>n</i>15) and aspirates from lymph nodes (<i>n</i>14) were obtained and tested. Twenty-one samples were found to be positive, and 20 were negative upon Xpert testing. There was a statistically significant difference seen between the test groups (<i>p</i> < 0.01) with higher frequency of negative results in routine test. The <i>p</i> value for various specimens containing pus, biopsies and aspirates was 0.045, 0.023 and 0.067, respectively.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Xpert test is more accurate when compared to routine test for diagnosing maxillofacial tuberculosis. Although accuracy of Xpert test is better for pus and biopsy samples in the specimens from bone and soft tissue, it gives poor accuracy for aspirated cells. The aspirates from lymph nodes were more susceptible for false negative test.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47495,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Maxillofacial & Oral Surgery\",\"volume\":\"22 3\",\"pages\":\"533-537\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10390446/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Maxillofacial & Oral Surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s12663-021-01645-7\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2021/9/24 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Maxillofacial & Oral Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s12663-021-01645-7","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/9/24 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:颌面部结核是外科医生面临的诊断难题。本研究旨在详细分析 Xpert 检验在诊断颌面部结核病中的应用,并分析 Xpert 检验结果对颌面部不同组织的准确性:在这项横断面研究中,患者从门诊部随机抽取。研究对象包括临床表现和鉴别诊断高度提示颌面部结核的患者。根据受累部位的不同,患者被分为三组。根据标本的类型,从患者身上采集的标本被进一步细分。首先对患者进行常规检查,阴性病例再进行 Xpert 结核病检测:共有 54 名患者参与了研究,其中 13 名患者在结核病常规筛查中发现颌面部结核病阳性,41 名患者在常规检测中呈阴性,并通过 Xpert 检测进行了进一步评估。采集并检测了骨标本(12 例)、软组织和皮肤活检标本(15 例)以及淋巴结抽吸标本(14 例)。经 Xpert 检测,21 份样本呈阳性,20 份呈阴性。各检测组之间的差异具有统计学意义(各种脓液标本、活检样本和抽吸样本的 p 值分别为 0.045、0.023 和 0.067):结论:在诊断颌面部结核病方面,Xpert 检验比常规检验更准确。虽然 Xpert 检验对骨和软组织标本中的脓液和活检样本的准确性较高,但对吸出细胞的准确性较差。淋巴结抽吸物更容易出现假阴性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
An Analysis of Xpert Test for Diagnosing Maxillofacial Tuberculosis.

Background: Maxillofacial tuberculosis is a diagnostic challenge for surgeons. The aim of this study was to present a detailed analysis of Xpert test in diagnosing maxillofacial tuberculosis and to analyse the accuracy of Xpert test results for various tissues of maxillofacial region.

Materials and methods: In this cross-sectional study, patients were selected randomly from outpatient department. The patients who had clinical picture and differential diagnosis highly suggestive of maxillofacial tuberculosis were included. Patients were divided into three different groups depending upon the site of involvement. The samples collected from the patients were further subdivided depending upon the type of specimen. Patients were screened first by routine tests, and the negative cases were followed by Xpert test for tuberculosis.

Results: A total of 54 patients were enrolled in the study, 13 patients were found to be positive for maxillofacial tuberculosis on routine screening tests for tuberculosis, and 41 tested negative on routine test and were evaluated further through Xpert test. Specimens from bone (n12), soft tissue and skin biopsy (n15) and aspirates from lymph nodes (n14) were obtained and tested. Twenty-one samples were found to be positive, and 20 were negative upon Xpert testing. There was a statistically significant difference seen between the test groups (p < 0.01) with higher frequency of negative results in routine test. The p value for various specimens containing pus, biopsies and aspirates was 0.045, 0.023 and 0.067, respectively.

Conclusion: Xpert test is more accurate when compared to routine test for diagnosing maxillofacial tuberculosis. Although accuracy of Xpert test is better for pus and biopsy samples in the specimens from bone and soft tissue, it gives poor accuracy for aspirated cells. The aspirates from lymph nodes were more susceptible for false negative test.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Maxillofacial & Oral Surgery
Journal of Maxillofacial & Oral Surgery DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE-
CiteScore
1.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
138
期刊介绍: This journal offers comprehensive coverage of new techniques, important developments and innovative ideas in Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery. Practice-applicable articles help develop the methods used to handle dentoalveolar surgery, facial injuries and deformities, TMJ disorders, oral cancer, jaw reconstruction, anesthesia and analgesia. The journal also includes specifics on new instruments, diagnostic equipment’s and modern therapeutic drugs and devices. Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery is recommended for first or priority subscription by the Dental Section of the Medical Library Association. Specific topics covered recently have included: ? distraction osteogenesis ? synthetic bone substitutes ? fibroblast growth factors ? fetal wound healing ? skull base surgery ? computer-assisted surgery ? vascularized bone grafts Benefits to authorsWe also provide many author benefits, such as free PDFs, a liberal copyright policy, special discounts on Elsevier publications and much more. Please click here for more information on our author services.
×
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