Savader S J, Prescott C A, Lund G B, Osterman F A
Russel H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Sciences, Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, MD 21287, USA.
J Vasc Interv Radiol. 1996 Sep-Oct;7(5):743-50. doi: 10.1016/s1051-0443(96)70843-6.
To compare the results obtained with three different techniques for percutaneous transhepatic intraductal biopsy.
Eighty-eight patients with obstructive jaundice underwent placement of percutaneous biliary drainage catheters for biliary decompression. As part of the initial procedure or at a subsequent date, intraductal biliary biopsy (n = 109) was performed with use of one or more of three techniques including cytologic brush (n = 53), clamshell forceps under choledochoscopic guidance (n = 31), and clamshell forceps under fluoroscopic guidance (n = 25).
Forty-eight patients (55%) had a final diagnosis of malignant disease, and 40 (45%) had a diagnosis of benign disease. One hundred six (97%) biopsy procedures yielded technically adequate specimens. No complications directly related to the biopsy procedures occurred. Overall sensitivity and specificity for each biopsy technique were 26% and 96% for the cytologic brush technique, 30% and 88% for the clamshell forceps under fluoroscopic guidance technique, and 44% and 100% for the clamshell forceps under choledochoscopic guidance technique, respectively. The sensitivities of the biopsy techniques for pancreatic carcinoma and cholangiocarcinoma, respectively, were 47% and 0% for brush; 75% and 0% for fluoroscopic clamshell; and 100% and 27% for choledochoscopic clamshell.
The choledochoscope-directed biopsy technique had the greatest sensitivity and specificity of the three techniques evaluated, but this difference was not statistically significant versus the brush or fluoroscopic clamshell technique (P > .10). The sensitivity of all three techniques for pancreatic carcinoma was significantly greater than that for cholangiocarcinoma. Multiple biopsies did not increase the overall sensitivity of intraductal biliary biopsy as a diagnostic technique. All three techniques proved to be safe and easy to perform.
比较三种不同经皮经肝胆管内活检技术的结果。
88例梗阻性黄疸患者接受经皮胆道引流导管置入术以进行胆道减压。作为初始操作的一部分或在随后的日期,使用三种技术中的一种或多种进行胆管内活检(n = 109),这三种技术包括细胞学刷检(n = 53)、在胆管镜引导下使用蚌式活检钳(n = 31)以及在荧光透视引导下使用蚌式活检钳(n = 25)。
48例患者(55%)最终诊断为恶性疾病,40例(45%)诊断为良性疾病。106例(97%)活检操作获得了技术上足够的标本。未发生与活检操作直接相关的并发症。每种活检技术的总体敏感性和特异性分别为:细胞学刷检技术为26%和96%,荧光透视引导下蚌式活检钳技术为30%和88%,胆管镜引导下蚌式活检钳技术为44%和100%。活检技术对胰腺癌和胆管癌的敏感性分别为:刷检为47%和0%;荧光透视下蚌式活检钳为75%和0%;胆管镜下蚌式活检钳为100%和27%。
在评估的三种技术中,胆管镜引导下活检技术具有最高的敏感性和特异性,但与刷检或荧光透视下蚌式活检钳技术相比,这种差异无统计学意义(P > 0.10)。所有三种技术对胰腺癌的敏感性均显著高于胆管癌。多次活检并未提高胆管内活检作为一种诊断技术的总体敏感性。所有三种技术均证明安全且易于操作。