Literature DB >> 26319275

Nose biopsy: a comparison between two sampling techniques.

Nili Segal1, Lidia Osyntsov2, Judith Olchowski3,2,4, Sofia Kordeluk3, Ygal Plakht4.   

Abstract

Pre operative biopsy is important in obtaining preliminary information that may help in tailoring the optimal treatment. The aim of this study was to compare two sampling techniques of obtaining nasal biopsy-nasal forceps and nasal scissors in terms of pathological results. Biopsies of nasal lesions were taken from patients undergoing nasal surgery by two techniques- with nasal forceps and with nasal scissors. Each sample was examined by a senior pathologist that was blinded to the sampling method. A grading system was used to rate the crush artifact in every sample (none, mild, moderate, severe). A comparison was made between the severity of the crush artifact and the pathological results of the two techniques. One hundred and forty-four samples were taken from 46 patients. Thirty-one were males and the mean age was 49.6 years. Samples taken by forceps had significantly higher grades of crush artifacts compared to those taken by scissors. The degree of crush artifacts had a significant influence on the accuracy of the pre operative biopsy. Forceps cause significant amount of crush artifacts compared to scissors. The degree of crush artifact in the tissue sample influences the accuracy of the biopsy.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Lesion; Nasal biopsy; Nasal forceps; Nasal scissors

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26319275     DOI: 10.1007/s00405-015-3754-y

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol        ISSN: 0937-4477            Impact factor:   2.503


  9 in total

1.  Clinical value of office-based endoscopic incisional biopsy in diagnosis of nasal cavity masses.

Authors:  Myung Woul Han; Bong-Jae Lee; Yong Ju Jang; Yoo-Sam Chung
Journal:  Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg       Date:  2010-09       Impact factor: 3.497

2.  Indications, technique, safety, and accuracy of office-based nasal endoscopy with biopsy for sinonasal neoplasm.

Authors:  Abtin Tabaee; Amy K Hsu; Ashutosh Kacker
Journal:  Int Forum Allergy Rhinol       Date:  2011-03-16       Impact factor: 3.858

3.  A review of the clinicopathological and radiological features of unilateral nasal mass.

Authors:  Satish Nair; E James; S Awasthi; Sapna Nambiar; Sunil Goyal
Journal:  Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg       Date:  2011-08-27

Review 4.  A whiff of trouble: tumours of the nasal cavity and their mimics.

Authors:  M J Szewczyk-Bieda; R D White; M J Budak; G Ananthakrishnan; J N Brunton; T A Sudarshan
Journal:  Clin Radiol       Date:  2014-02-11       Impact factor: 2.350

Review 5.  Nasal biopsy: indications, techniques and complications.

Authors:  A J Prior; M A Calderon; R J Lavelle; R J Davies
Journal:  Respir Med       Date:  1995-03       Impact factor: 3.415

6.  Inflammatory cell patterns in the nasal mucosa of patients with idiopathic rhinitis.

Authors:  Şenol Çomoğlu; Nesil Keles; Kemal Değer
Journal:  Am J Rhinol Allergy       Date:  2012 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 2.467

Review 7.  Computed tomography and/or magnetic resonance imaging for pre-operative planning for inverted nasal papilloma: review of evidence.

Authors:  P D Karkos; L C Khoo; S C Leong; H Lewis-Jones; A C Swift
Journal:  J Laryngol Otol       Date:  2009-02-16       Impact factor: 1.469

8.  Magnetic resonance imaging versus computed tomography and different imaging modalities in evaluation of sinonasal neoplasms diagnosed by histopathology.

Authors:  Mohammed A Gomaa; Moustafa S Hammad; Abobakr Abdelmoghny; Ashraf M Elsherif; Heba M Tawfik
Journal:  Clin Med Insights Ear Nose Throat       Date:  2013-06-26

9.  The usefulness of preoperative biopsy in unilateral nasal masses.

Authors:  Nili Segal; Ofer Gluck; Yosef Bavnik; Ygal Plakht; Arkadi Yakirevitch
Journal:  Allergy Rhinol (Providence)       Date:  2014-03-28
  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.