Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
addClaim

This Research product is the result of merged Research products in OpenAIRE.

You have already added 0 works in your ORCID record related to the merged Research product.

Fine-needle aspiration biopsy versus fine-needle capillary (nonaspiration) biopsy: in vivo comparison.

Authors: J. S. Hartzel; Thomas R. TenHave; Catherine Abendroth; Kenneth D. Hopper; Carrie A. Savage;

Fine-needle aspiration biopsy versus fine-needle capillary (nonaspiration) biopsy: in vivo comparison.

Abstract

To evaluate, in vivo, the efficacy of fine-needle capillary (nonaspiration) biopsy (FNCB) versus fine-needle aspiration biopsy (FNAB) when performed at the same site with a coaxial technique.In 91 patients, biopsy was performed at 140 sites in 93 lesions mostly throughout the chest and abdomen with either FNCB or FNAB, or both (98 sites). A coaxial technique with a 22-gauge needle was used. The quality of the specimen was graded by a blinded pathologist, who also made a pathologic diagnosis.No statistically significant difference was noted in the graded criteria performance plus diagnostic yield between the two techniques. When performed before FNAB, FNCB yielded a better quality specimen of a particular site. However, there was no difference in the graded quality of FNAB whether performed before or after FNCB. Insufficient specimens were obtained at 30 (21.4%) of 140 sites with FNCB versus only 18 (12.8%) with FNAB.FNCB is an alternative to FNAB and provides a cellular diagnostic specimen from most lesions. When a coaxial method is used and both techniques are employed, the diagnostic accuracy of these techniques is 84%.

Related Organizations
Keywords

Biopsy, Needle, Humans

  • BIP!
    Impact byBIP!
    citations
    This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    24
    popularity
    This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
    influence
    This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    Top 10%
    impulse
    This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
    Top 10%
Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
citations
This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Citations provided by BIP!
popularity
This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Popularity provided by BIP!
influence
This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Influence provided by BIP!
impulse
This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Impulse provided by BIP!
24
Average
Top 10%
Top 10%
Upload OA version
Are you the author of this publication? Upload your Open Access version to Zenodo!
It’s fast and easy, just two clicks!