Viral M Bhanvadia1, P M Santwani1, J H Vachhani2. 1. Department of Pathology, M.P. Shah Govt. Medical College, Jamnagar, Gujarat, India. 2. Department of Immunohematology & Blood Transfusion, M.P. Shah Govt. Medical College, Gujarat, India.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Aspiration of serous cavities is a simple and relatively non-invasive technique to achieve diagnosis. Cytologic evaluation of body cavity fluid is diagnostically challenging. METHODS: A total of 150 fluid specimens were examined for conventional cytological smear (CS) and cell block method (CB). Out of 150 fluids, 79 were pleural fluid, 69 were ascitic fluid and 2 pericardial fluid. Each fluid specimen was divided in two equal parts: one part was subjected to conventional smear technique, while the other part was subjected to 10% alcohol-acetic acid-formalin cell block technique. Overall morphological details, cellularity, architecture, nuclear and cytoplasmic details were studied in both CS and CB techniques. RESULTS: In this study, the utility of the CB method in the cytodiagnosis of malignant effusions was found to be highly significant as compared to the CS method. The additional yield of malignancy was 10% more as was obtained by the CB method. CONCLUSION: For the final cytodiagnosis of body fluid, there is statistically significant difference between the two techniques. In other words, CB is superior to CS method.
BACKGROUND: Aspiration of serous cavities is a simple and relatively non-invasive technique to achieve diagnosis. Cytologic evaluation of body cavity fluid is diagnostically challenging. METHODS: A total of 150 fluid specimens were examined for conventional cytological smear (CS) and cell block method (CB). Out of 150 fluids, 79 were pleural fluid, 69 were ascitic fluid and 2 pericardial fluid. Each fluid specimen was divided in two equal parts: one part was subjected to conventional smear technique, while the other part was subjected to 10% alcohol-acetic acid-formalin cell block technique. Overall morphological details, cellularity, architecture, nuclear and cytoplasmic details were studied in both CS and CB techniques. RESULTS: In this study, the utility of the CB method in the cytodiagnosis of malignant effusions was found to be highly significant as compared to the CS method. The additional yield of malignancy was 10% more as was obtained by the CB method. CONCLUSION: For the final cytodiagnosis of body fluid, there is statistically significant difference between the two techniques. In other words, CB is superior to CS method.