摘要
目的比较16G与18G活检针在肺部肿物穿刺活检中的安全性和有效性。方法回顾性分析102例肺部肿物患者,在CT引导下使用16G或18G活检针行经皮肺穿刺活检(16G组50例,18G组52例),比较两组的穿刺成功率、病理阳性率、穿刺导致的出血和气胸等并发症情况。结果两组穿刺成功率均为100%,16G活检针组活检阳性率为98.00%,其中恶性肿瘤42例;18G活检针组活检阳性率为94.23%,其中恶性肿瘤43例,两组之间无明显差异(P>0.05)。两组穿刺后出血发生率为30.39%,16G活检针组出血发生率为30.00%,18G活检针组出血发生率为30.77%,两组之间无明显差异(P>0.05);两组气胸发生率为25.49%,16G活检针组气胸发生率为34.00%,18G活检针组气胸发生率为17.31%,16G组气胸发生率大于18G组,存在显著性差异(P<0.05)。结论 16G与18G活检针在肺部肿物穿刺活检中较为安全和有效,在活检阳性率和出血并发症上差别不大,但16G活检针气胸发生率较高。
Objective To compare safety and efficacy of 16G and 18G biopsy needles in the CT-guided puncture biopsy of Pulmonary mass.Methods 102 patients with Pulmonary mass(50 cases in the 16G group and 52 cases in the 18G group)were retrospectively analyzed.Under the guidance of CT,16G or 18G biopsy needles were used for biopsy by percutaneous lung puncture,and complications such as puncture success rate,pathological positive rate,hemorrhage caused by puncture and pneumothorax were compared between the two groups.Results The puncture success rate was 100%in both groups,the pathological positive rate was 98.00%in 16G biopsy needle group,including 42 cases of malignant tumors,and the pathological positive rate was 94.23%in 18G biopsy needle group,including 43 cases of malignant tumors,with out significant difference between the two groups(P>0.05).The incidence of hemorrhage was 30.39%in two groups,30.00%in 16G biopsy needle group and 30.77%in 18G biopsy needle group,did not show any significant differences between these two groups(P>0.05).The pneumothorax incidence rate in two groups was 25.49%,34.00%in 16G biopsy needle group,which was significantly higher than 17.31%in the 18G biopsy needle group(P<0.05).Conclusion 16G and 18G biopsy needles are safe and effective in the biopsy of pulmonary mass.There is no difference in the pathological positive rate and hemorrhage,but the pneumothorax incidence of 16G biopsy needle is higher.
作者
胡钧文
杨清梅
熊斌
阚雪锋
HU Jun-wen;YANG Qing-mei;XIONG Bin;KAN Xue-feng(Department of Oncology,The Third People’s Hospital of Yibin,Sichuan 644000,China)
出处
《影像诊断与介入放射学》
2019年第1期66-69,共4页
Diagnostic Imaging & Interventional Radiology
