↓ Skip to main content

Computed tomography-guided biopsy of mediastinal lesions: fine versus cutting needles

Overview of attention for article published in Clinics, June 2003
Altmetric Badge

Citations

dimensions_citation
23 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
4 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Computed tomography-guided biopsy of mediastinal lesions: fine versus cutting needles
Published in
Clinics, June 2003
DOI 10.1590/s0041-87812003000200003
Pubmed ID
Authors

André Piovesan de Farias, Daniel Deheinzelin, Riad N. Younes, Rubens Chojniak

Abstract

To report the experience of a radiology department in the use of computed tomography guided biopsies of mediastinal lesions with fine and cutting needles, describing the differences between them. The results of adequacy of the sample and histologic diagnoses are presented according to the type of needle used. We present a retrospective study of mediastinal biopsies guided by computed tomography performed from January 1993 to December 1999. Eighty-six patients underwent mediastinal biopsy in this period, 37 with cutting needles, 38 with fine needles, and 11 with both types (total of 97 biopsies). In most cases, it was possible to obtain an adequate sample (82.5%) and specific diagnosis (67.0%). Cutting-needle biopsy produced a higher percentage of adequate samples (89.6% versus 75.5%, P = 0.068) and of specific diagnosis (81.3% versus 53.1%, P = 0.003) than fine-needle biopsy. There were no complications that required intervention in either group. Because they are practical, safe, and can provide accurate diagnoses, image-guided biopsies should be considered the procedure of choice in the initial exploration of patients with mediastinal masses. In our experience, cutting needles gave higher quality samples and diagnostic rates. We recommend the use of cutting needles as the preferred procedure.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 4 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 4 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 1 25%
Professor 1 25%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 25%
Researcher 1 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Arts and Humanities 1 25%
Unspecified 1 25%
Psychology 1 25%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 25%