Yield of Cutting Needles versus Abrams Needles in Ultrasound-Assisted Pleural Sampling in Patients with Pleural Effusion under Study. Case Series
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
Introduction: Pleural biopsies are of great diagnostic utility for the study of pleural pathology. Abrams needles continue to be widely used. However, a higher profitability of cutting needles is described, due to technical differences in sample collection. The objective of our study is to compare the profitability of pleural tissue collection by cutting needles versus ecologically assisted Abrams needles.
Material and Methods: We conducted a retrospective, observational study comparing the cost-effectiveness of pleural tissue collection using sharp needles versus traditional Abrams needles, all assisted by ultrasound. Pleural biopsies performed during 2023 by a single operator trained in both techniques were selected. Sixty-nine patients with exudative pleural effusion who required pleural biopsies as part of the diagnostic procedure were included. 19 were sharp needle biopsies and 50 were Abrams needle biopsies. A descriptive study of the results was conducted.
Results: Pleural needle biopsies obtained pleural tissue in 79% of cases and Abrams needle biopsies obtained 68%. The most frequent diagnoses obtained with the sharp needle were: neoplasia (20%), TB (26.6%) and nonspecific chronic inflammatory disease (53.3%). The most frequent diagnoses obtained with the Abrams needle were: neoplasia (55.8%), TB (17.6%) and nonspecific chronic inflammatory disease (26.4%). Chi-square test (P = 0.38) showed no statistically significant difference.
Conclusions: There was no significant difference between the two techniques, thus presenting a valid alternative to ultrasound-assisted closed pleural biopsies without affecting our diagnostic yield.
Article Details
Section
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
How to Cite
References
Bhatnagar R, Maskell N. Developing a «pleural team» to run a reactive pleural service. Clin Med (Lond) 2013;13(5):452-6. Doi: 10.7861/clinmedicine.13-5-452.
Porcel JM, Esquerda A, Vives M, Bielsa S. Etiology of pleural effusions: analysis of more than 3,000 consecutive thoracenteses. Arch Bronconeumol 2014;50(5):161-5. Doi: 10.1016/j.arbres.2013.11.007.
Light RW, Macgregor MI, Luchsinger PC, Ball WCJ. Pleural effusions: the diagnostic separation of transudates and exudates. Ann Intern Med 1972;77(4):507-13. Doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-77-4-507.
Botana Rial M, Pérez Pallarés J, Cases Viedma E et al. Diagnosis and Treatment of Pleural Effusion. Recommendations of the Spanish Society of Pulmonology and Thoracic Surgery. Update 2022. Arch Bronconeumol 2023;59(1):27-35. Doi: 10.1016/j.arbres.2022.09.017.
Roberts ME, Rahman NM, Maskell NA et al. British Thoracic Society Guideline for pleural disease. Thorax 2023;78(Suppl 3):s1-42. Doi: 10.1136/thorax-2022-219784.
Arnold DT, De Fonseka D, Perry S et al. Investigating unilateral pleural effusions: the role of cytology. Eur Respir J 2018;52(5):1801254. Doi: 10.1183/13993003.01254-2018.
Sundaralingam A, Bedawi EO, Rahman NM. Diagnostics in Pleural Disease. Diagnostics (Basel) 2020;10(12):1046. Doi: 10.3390/diagnostics10121046.
Asciak R, Bedawi EO, Bhatnagar R et al. British Thoracic Society Clinical Statement on pleural procedures. Thorax 2023;78(Suppl 3):s43-68. Doi: 10.1136/thorax-2022-219371.
Martinez-Zayas G, Molina S, Ost DE. Sensitivity and complications of thoracentesis and thoracoscopy: a meta-analysis. Eur Respir Rev 2022;31(166)::220053. Doi: 10.1183/16000617.0053-2022.
Corcoran JP, Psallidas I, Hallifax RJ, Talwar A, Sykes A, Rahman NM. Ultrasound-guided pneumothorax induction prior to local anaesthetic thoracoscopy. Thorax 2015;70(9):906-8. Doi: 10.1136/thoraxjnl-2014-206676.
Saha K, Maji A, Bandyopadhyay A, Jash D. Diagnostic Yield of Closed Pleural Biopsy in Undiagnosed Exudative Pleural Effusions. Maedica 2021;16(1):34-40. Doi: 10.26574/maedica.2020.16.1.34.
Sivakumar P, Jayaram D, Rao D, Dhileepan V, Ahmed I, Ahmed L. Ultrasound-Guided Abrams Pleural Biopsy vs CT-Guided Tru-Cut Pleural Biopsy in Malignant Pleural Disease, a 3-Year Follow-up Study. Lung 2016;194(6):911-6. Doi: 10.1007/s00408-016-9933-9.
Maskell NA, Gleeson FV, Davies RJO. Standard pleural biopsy versus CT-guided cutting-needle biopsy for diagnosis of malignant disease in pleural effusions: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2003;361(9366):1326-30. Doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(03)13079-6.
Sivakumar P, Jayaram D, Rao D, Dhileepan V, Ahmed I, Ahmed L. Ultrasound-Guided Abrams Pleural Biopsy vs CT-Guided Tru-Cut Pleural Biopsy in Malignant Pleural Disease, a 3-Year Follow-up Study. Lung 2016;194(6):911-6. Doi: 10.1007/s00408-016-9933-9.