Tripathi Richik, Singh Nidhi, Agrawal Rahul, Chandra Akhilesh, Bera Rathindra, Asodariya Mital R
Faculty of Dental Sciences, IMS BHU, Varanasi, India.
J Maxillofac Oral Surg. 2023 Sep;22(3):533-537. doi: 10.1007/s12663-021-01645-7. Epub 2021 Sep 24.
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.
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.
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 (12), soft tissue and skin biopsy (15) and aspirates from lymph nodes (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 ( < 0.01) with higher frequency of negative results in routine test. The value for various specimens containing pus, biopsies and aspirates was 0.045, 0.023 and 0.067, respectively.
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.
颌面部结核对外科医生来说是一个诊断难题。本研究的目的是详细分析Xpert检测在颌面部结核诊断中的应用,并分析Xpert检测结果对颌面部不同组织的准确性。
在这项横断面研究中,患者从门诊部随机选取。纳入具有高度提示颌面部结核临床表现和鉴别诊断的患者。根据受累部位将患者分为三个不同组。从患者采集的样本再根据标本类型进一步细分。患者首先进行常规检测筛查,阴性病例随后进行结核Xpert检测。
本研究共纳入54例患者,13例患者在结核常规筛查检测中被发现颌面部结核呈阳性,41例常规检测呈阴性,并通过Xpert检测进一步评估。获取了来自骨(12例)、软组织和皮肤活检(15例)以及淋巴结抽吸物(14例)的标本并进行检测。Xpert检测发现21个样本呈阳性,20个样本呈阴性。检测组之间存在统计学显著差异(<0.01),常规检测中阴性结果频率更高。各种含有脓液、活检组织和抽吸物的标本的 值分别为0.045、0.023和0.067。
与常规检测相比,Xpert检测在诊断颌面部结核时更准确。尽管Xpert检测对来自骨和软组织标本中的脓液和活检样本准确性更好,但对抽吸细胞的准确性较差。淋巴结抽吸物更容易出现假阴性检测结果。