• Login
    View Item 
    •   DSpace Home
    • School of Medicine
    • Journal Papers in Scopus 2
    • View Item
    •   DSpace Home
    • School of Medicine
    • Journal Papers in Scopus 2
    • View Item
    JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

    Comparison of two techniques for endoscopic ultrasonography fine-needle aspiration in solid pancreatic mass

    Thumbnail
    Date
    2014-01-01
    Author
    Amir Houshang Mohammad Alizadeh
    Mohammad Hadizadeh
    Maryam Padashi
    Shahin Shahbaazi
    Mahsa Molaee
    Zahra Vahdat Shariatpanahi
    Metadata
    Show full item record
    Abstract
    Background: Endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) is a newly imagine procedure for assessment and therapeutic in option. The aims of this study are comparison two techniques about EUS-fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA), including successful tissue sampling, complication, procedure time, and safety. Materials and Methods: A total of 100 patients with pancreatic solid masses were in the study, 50 patients underwent EUS-FNA with negative pressure as Group 1 and 50 patients underwent EUS-FNA without negative pressure and stylet as Group 2 over a 36 months period. Results: The study period was from March 2011 to January 2014. In total case, the male-to-female ratio was 1.27 with a mean age of 61.7 ± 1.3 years. The involvement of different regions of the pancreas, pancreatic head had the most frequent (69%) after that uncinate (12%), body (11%) and tail (8%). I n 100 pancreatic EUS-FNA samples, 48% were interpreted as malignant on pathology evaluation, 15% as suspicious for malignancy, 27% as benign processes and 10% inadequate specimen. There were no significant differences between the adequacy of sample cells in two techniques (P < 0.148). Conclusion: The EUS-FNA without negative pressure and stylet technique was related with less contamination by blood and raise the diagnostic yield. We recommend further studies for better evaluation of our study with higher the cases because clinically the low the inadequate samples (6% vs. 14%) and less contamination with blood (20% vs. 50%) in the second group (P < 0.002).
    DOI
    http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/2303-9027.138790
    Collections
    • Journal Papers in Scopus 2

    Contact Us | Send Feedback
     

     

    Browse

    All of DSpaceCommunities & CollectionsBy Issue DateAuthorsTitlesSubjectsThis CollectionBy Issue DateAuthorsTitlesSubjects

    My Account

    LoginRegister

    Contact Us | Send Feedback