Résumé
Objective@#To explore the safety and clinical value of percutaneous ultrasound-guided core needle biopsy(PUS-CNB) and endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration(EUS-FNA) in pancreas mass.@*Methods@#Ultrasound-guided biopsy were performed in 109 cases who were difficult to diagnose to get specimens from the highly suspicious parts of the lesions by avoiding vessels. PUS-CNB were performed in 82 cases, EUS-FNA in 19 cases and both in 8 cases. The site and size of lesions were recorded preopeartion. Specimens with clear pathological diagnosis were considered as satisfactory materials. Specimens that were impossible to puncture due to the existence of high risk factors in the process of puncture were considered as unsuccessful biopsy. All patients were followed up after biopsy and complications were recorded.@*Results@#The satisfaction rate and success rate of PUS-CNB were 98.89% and 100%, the diagnostic accuracy and false negative rate were 97.78% and 2.22%. The satisfaction rate and success rate of EUS-FNA were 96.15% and 96.30%, the diagnostic accuracy and false negative rate were 80.77% and 23.81%. There were no serious complications such as pancreatic fistula, hemorrhage and needle transfer at the needle site after puncture.@*Conclusions@#Both PUS-CNB and EUS-FNA are safe and effective methods for the diagnosis of benign and malignant pancreatic lesions and have high clinical values. Reasonable selection of EUS-FNA and PUS-CNB can safely and reliably identify and diffentiate the benign and malignant pancreatic lesions.
Résumé
Objective To explore the safety and clinical value of percutaneous ultrasound‐guided core needle biopsy( PUS‐CNB) and endoscopic ultrasound‐guided fine needle aspiration( EUS‐FNA ) in pancreas mass . Methods Ultrasound‐guided biopsy were performed in 109 cases who were difficult to diagnose to get specimens from the highly suspicious parts of the lesions by avoiding vessels . PUS‐CNB were performed in 82 cases , EUS‐FNA in 19 cases and both in 8 cases . T he site and size of lesions were recorded preopeartion . Specimens with clear pathological diagnosis were considered as satisfactory materials . Specimens that were impossible to puncture due to the existence of high risk factors in the process of puncture were considered as unsuccessful biopsy . All patients were followed up after biopsy and complications were recorded . Results The satisfaction rate and success rate of PUS‐CNB were 98 .89% and 100% ,the diagnostic accuracy and false negative rate were 97 .78% and 2 .22% . T he satisfaction rate and success rate of EUS‐FNA were 96 .15% and 96 .30% ,the diagnostic accuracy and false negative rate were 80 .77% and 23 .81% . T here were no serious complications such as pancreatic fistula ,hemorrhage and needle transfer at the needle site after puncture . Conclusions Both PUS‐CNB and EUS‐FNA are safe and effective methods for the diagnosis of benign and malignant pancreatic lesions and have high clinical values . Reasonable selection of EUS‐FNA and PUS‐CNB can safely and reliably identify and diffentiate the benign and malignant pancreatic lesions .