Jain N K, Guhan A R, Joshi N, Dixit R, Singh V, Meena R P
Hospital for Chest Diseases and Tuberculosis SMS Medical College, Jaipur.
J Assoc Physicians India. 2000 Aug;48(8):776-80.
The present study was planned to evaluate the efficacy and diagnostic reliability of conoctional parietal pleural biopsy to a technique of visceral pleural biopsy.
Study comprises of 54 diagnosed cases of pleural effusion and after establishing the clinical diagnosis for probable etiological causes. Then parietal pleural biopsy using absents punch biopsy needle and vesceral pleural biopsy using Prabhudesai et al technique was taken in all these patients. Size of the tissue yield; percentage of biopsies; diagnostic yield and sensitivity for these two techniques were compared.
A definitive etiological diagnosis could be reached in 52 out of 54 patients on the basis of pleural biopsy (33 tuberculous, 16 malignant and 3 pyogenic), 23 (69.7%) tuberculous effusion patients were diagnosis by visceral pleural biopsy and 14 (42.4%) by parietal pleural biopsy out of 33 diagnosed tuberculous effusion cases. While for the 16 malignant effusions the visceral pleural biopsy showed suggestive histological change in 13 (81.25%) patients and the parietal pleural biopsy in seven (43.8%) with five (31.25%) of these patients being positive by both. All three pyogenic effusions showed only nonspecific inflammatory change in both pleurae.
The mean size of biopsy sample obtained with modified Prabhudesai et al technique was significantly larger than that of the parietal pleural biopsy with Abrams punch (4.85 mm2 V/s 2.5 mm2 with P < 0.01). Adequate pleural tissue was identifiable in 94.4% and 90.7% of cases, respectively. The modified Prabhudesai et al technique proved to be effective safe and easily learnt. Visceral pleural sampling using this technique is a definite superior addition to the present diagnostic armamentarium of an idiopathic pleural effusion and its routine application together with parietal pleural biopsy will help to establish a definitive diagnosis in majority of patients with idiopathic pleural effusions.
本研究旨在评估经胸壁胸膜活检与经脏层胸膜活检技术的疗效及诊断可靠性。
研究纳入54例确诊的胸腔积液病例,在明确临床诊断及可能的病因后,所有患者均采用阿布斯穿刺活检针进行经胸壁胸膜活检,并采用普拉布德赛等人的技术进行经脏层胸膜活检。比较两种技术所获取组织的大小、活检阳性率、诊断阳性率及敏感性。
54例患者中,52例基于胸膜活检可明确病因诊断(33例结核性、16例恶性及3例化脓性)。在33例确诊为结核性胸腔积液的病例中,23例(69.7%)经脏层胸膜活检确诊为结核性胸腔积液,14例(42.4%)经胸壁胸膜活检确诊。对于16例恶性胸腔积液,经脏层胸膜活检13例(81.25%)显示有提示性组织学改变,经胸壁胸膜活检7例(43.8%)显示有提示性组织学改变,其中5例(31.25%)两种活检均为阳性。所有3例化脓性胸腔积液在两层胸膜均仅显示非特异性炎症改变。
采用改良的普拉布德赛等人的技术所获取活检样本的平均大小显著大于采用阿布斯穿刺针经胸壁胸膜活检所获取样本的平均大小(4.85平方毫米对2.5平方毫米,P<0.01)。分别在94.4%和90.7%的病例中可识别出足够的胸膜组织。改良的普拉布德赛等人的技术被证明是有效、安全且易于掌握的。使用该技术进行脏层胸膜采样无疑是目前特发性胸腔积液诊断手段的一项优越补充,其与经胸壁胸膜活检一起常规应用将有助于大多数特发性胸腔积液患者确立明确诊断。