A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Utility and safety of ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration of salivary gland masses including a cytologist's review. | LitMetric

Objective: To evaluate the utility and safety of ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration of the salivary glands for diagnosis of focal masses in the salivary glands, including the prevalence of nondiagnostic sampling, the impact of the presence of a cytologist during the procedure, and the usefulness of flow cytometry.

Methods: A retrospective analysis of 43 ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspirations of the salivary glands from 36 lesions in 33 patients was performed. Fine-needle aspirations were obtained under sonographic guidance, and 1 to 6 punctures were made with 20- to 25-gauge needles. Ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspirations obtained in the presence of a cytologist were compared with those performed without a cytologist regarding the adequacy of the specimen and the number of punctures performed. Postprocedural complications and the frequency with which flow cytometry was performed were noted. Cytopathologic diagnosis was correlated with clinical follow-up (n = 33) and surgical pathologic findings (n = 10).

Results: Cytologic diagnosis was made in 31 (94%) of 33 patients, confirming a neoplastic process in 18 (50%) of 36 and a non-neoplastic process in 16 (44%) of 36. Although the presence of a cytologist at the bedside resulted in a higher prevalence of diagnostic sampling (P < .05), it did not alter the number of punctures performed (mean, 3 punctures). No complications were encountered except for pain in 2 patients. Flow cytometry was helpful in 8 (22%) of 36 patients.

Conclusions: Ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration of the salivary glands is a safe procedure with a low prevalence of nondiagnostic sampling. Approximately 44% of patients can be spared surgical intervention through diagnosis of a non-neoplastic process. The presence of a cytologist increases the likelihood of obtaining a diagnostic sample. Flow cytometry was helpful in 22% of patients.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.7863/jum.2004.23.6.777DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

ultrasound-guided fine-needle
20
salivary glands
16
presence cytologist
16
fine-needle aspiration
12
aspiration salivary
12
fine-needle aspirations
12
flow cytometry
12
utility safety
8
safety ultrasound-guided
8
prevalence nondiagnostic
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!