Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 2 de 2
Filtrar
Mais filtros










Base de dados
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
AJR Am J Roentgenol ; 207(4): 912-917, 2016 Oct.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-27340732

RESUMO

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to assess whether 6-month imaging follow-up after benign core needle breast biopsy is important for patient outcomes and whether it depends on nonspecific versus definitive benign biopsy results. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Consecutive breast biopsies from 2003 to 2010 were analyzed. Benign concordant lesions with at least 2 years of follow-up were assessed. Pathologic abnormalities were further characterized as having definitive or nonspecific features. A two-tailed Fisher exact test was used to assess the difference in pathologic features among lesions that had progressed. RESULTS: Of 3256 cases, 1705 biopsies in 1602 women were benign concordant and were recommended for 6-month imaging follow-up; the compliance rate was 94.9%. Of these, 1444 biopsies were confirmed as benign with long-term follow-up or excision. At pathologic analysis, 805 (55.7%) benign lesions had definitive features and 639 (44.3%) had nonspecific features. Thirty-four (2.4%) lesions progressed; this was similar for the lesions with definitive (2.6%) and nonspecific (2.0%) features (p = 0.60). The false-negative rate was 0.18%, with a mean of 5.0 cores sampled per lesion. CONCLUSION: For lesions with benign concordant biopsy results, selection of the follow-up interval should not be dictated by whether the pathologic features are definitive or nonspecific. The number of lesions that progress at imaging follow-up is low. The false-negative rate is low, regardless of modality or lesion type. A low false-negative rate is achievable with a reasonable number of core samples. The 6-month follow-up interval benefits only a small number of patients. Our results suggest that routine imaging after core needle biopsy is safe.

2.
Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol ; 29(1): 102-7, 2006.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-16283578

RESUMO

PURPOSE: To compare the clinical outcome of needle aspiration versus percutaneous catheter drainage of sterile fluid collections in patients with acute pancreatitis. METHODS: We reviewed the clinical and imaging data of patients with acute pancreatic fluid collections from 1998 to 2003. Referral for fluid sampling was based on elevated white blood cell count and fevers. Those patients with culture-negative drainages or needle aspirations were included in the study. Fifteen patients had aspiration of 10-20 ml fluid only (group A) and 22 patients had catheter placement for chronic evacuation of fluid (group C). We excluded patients with grossly purulent collections and chronic pseudocysts. We also recorded the number of sinograms and catheter changes and duration of catheter drainage. The CT severity index, Ranson scores, and maximum diameter of abdominal fluid collections were calculated for all patients at presentation. The total length of hospital stay (LOS), length of hospital stay after the drainage or aspiration procedure (LOS-P), and conversions to percutaneous and/or surgical drainage were recorded as well as survival. RESULTS: The CT severity index and acute Ransom scores were not different between the two groups (p = 0.15 and p = 0.6, respectively). When 3 crossover patients from group A to group C were accounted for, the duration of hospitalization did not differ significantly, with a mean LOS and LOS-P of 33.8 days and 27.9 days in group A and 41.5 days and 27.6 days in group C, respectively (p = 0.57 and 0.98, respectively). The 60-day mortality was 2 of 15 (13%) in group A and 2 of 22 (9.1%) in group C. Kaplan-Meier survival curves for the two groups were not significantly different (p = 0.3). Surgical or percutaneous conversions occurred significantly more often in group A (7/15, 47%) than surgical conversions in group C (4/22, 18%) (p = 0.03). Patients undergoing catheter drainage required an average of 2.2 sinograms/tube changes and kept catheters in for an average of 52 days. Aspirates turned culture-positive in 13 of 22 patients (59%) who had chronic catheterization. In group A, 3 of the 7 patients converted to percutaneous or surgical drainage had infected fluid at the time of conversion (total positive culture rate in group A 3/15 or 20%). CONCLUSIONS: There is no apparent clinical benefit for catheter drainage of sterile fluid collections arising in acute pancreatitis as the length of hospital stay and mortality were similar between patients undergoing aspiration versus catheter drainage. However, almost half of patients treated with simple aspiration will require surgical or percutaneous drainage at some point. Disadvantages of chronic catheter drainage include a greater than 50% rate of bacterial colonization and the need for multiple sinograms and tube changes over an average duration of about 2 months.


Assuntos
Drenagem/métodos , Exsudatos e Transudatos , Pancreatite/terapia , Sucção/métodos , Adolescente , Adulto , Idoso , Drenagem/instrumentação , Feminino , Humanos , Recém-Nascido , Tempo de Internação/estatística & dados numéricos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Pancreatite/diagnóstico por imagem , Estudos Retrospectivos , Sucção/instrumentação , Tomografia Computadorizada por Raios X , Resultado do Tratamento
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA
...