The main finding of this prospective comparison of USassistedFNAB and  terjemahan - The main finding of this prospective comparison of USassistedFNAB and  Bahasa Indonesia Bagaimana mengatakan

The main finding of this prospectiv

The main finding of this prospective comparison of USassisted
FNAB and CNB in 155 chest lesions of mixed origin is
the high combined diagnostic yield (87%), with a low rate of
complications. FNAB and CNB are complementary techniques.
Out of all the malignant tumours, 18% were diagnosed with
only one modality. The yield of FNAB alone was significantly
higher in lung carcinoma, while CNB was superior in all other
malignant tumours or in benign diseases. The high yield (95%)
of US-assisted FNAB in 89 cases of lung carcinoma is clinically
relevant. Chest pain indicating pleural involvement is a
common presenting symptom of lung caranoma, and a
considerable proportion of these patients might qualify for
US-assisted FNAB. This procedure is safe, can be performed at
the bedside by a chest physician using the same tools as for a
pleural tap or a diagnostic lymph node aspiration, and might
be preferable to the more expensive and less convenient CTguided
approach in many cases.
Compared with the current authors’ previous series of 91 USassisted
CNB [3], the high diagnostic yield has been maintained
with a reduced pneumothorax rate. This is most
probably due to the fact that FNAB replaced CNB in situations
deemed by the investigator to carry an elevated risk for
pneumothorax. It is reasonable to assume that FNAB causes
less tissue damage than CNB and is therefore an inherently
safer procedure. Small lesions, particularly when mobile on
respiration (fig. 1), are at risk of being punctured slightly off
centre. The chance of causing pneumothorax by accidental
puncture of aerated tissue increases with the size of the biopsy
device. Its safety, combined with its superior yield in lung
carcinoma, makes US-assisted FNAB the first choice for biopsy
of lesions originating from the lung. In contrast, lesions arising
from the chest wall, pleura or mediastinum are, by their
nature, safe targets for CNB because they are not mobile on
respiration and are not surrounded by lung tissue. Such lesions
are also less likely to represent carcinomatous tumours, which
favour CNB due to the better yield in comparison to FNAB. As
an added advantage, FNAB specimens are suited for ROSE,
which is of proven value in transbronchial needle aspiration [7,
8], as well as in CT-guided aspiration of chest lesions [9, 10].
The sensitivity of ROSE for the presence of diagnostic material
was 90% in the present study.
The superior yield of FNAB in lung carcinoma in the present
study is intriguing. FNAB did not have a better yield than CNB
in lung carcinomas in the large series by GONG et al. [4]
reporting on CT-guided biopsies. This may partly be due to
selection bias, because GONG et al. [4] only performed CNB
when FNAB smears were considered suboptimal on immediate
on-site assessment. Another explanation for the high rate of
false-negative CNB could lie in the nature of neoplastic lung
lesions detectable on US. Such lesions often show a nonhomogenous
picture with a mixture of necrotic areas, vital
tumour and atelectatic lung tissue. A CNB pass can harvest
a sizeable specimen from one area of the lesion, but this
might only contain nonrepresentative material [5].
0/5000
Dari: -
Ke: -
Hasil (Bahasa Indonesia) 1: [Salinan]
Disalin!
The main finding of this prospective comparison of USassistedFNAB and CNB in 155 chest lesions of mixed origin isthe high combined diagnostic yield (87%), with a low rate ofcomplications. FNAB and CNB are complementary techniques.Out of all the malignant tumours, 18% were diagnosed withonly one modality. The yield of FNAB alone was significantlyhigher in lung carcinoma, while CNB was superior in all othermalignant tumours or in benign diseases. The high yield (95%)of US-assisted FNAB in 89 cases of lung carcinoma is clinicallyrelevant. Chest pain indicating pleural involvement is acommon presenting symptom of lung caranoma, and aconsiderable proportion of these patients might qualify forUS-assisted FNAB. This procedure is safe, can be performed atthe bedside by a chest physician using the same tools as for apleural tap or a diagnostic lymph node aspiration, and mightbe preferable to the more expensive and less convenient CTguidedapproach in many cases.Compared with the current authors’ previous series of 91 USassistedCNB [3], the high diagnostic yield has been maintainedwith a reduced pneumothorax rate. This is mostprobably due to the fact that FNAB replaced CNB in situationsdeemed by the investigator to carry an elevated risk forpneumothorax. It is reasonable to assume that FNAB causesless tissue damage than CNB and is therefore an inherentlysafer procedure. Small lesions, particularly when mobile onrespiration (fig. 1), are at risk of being punctured slightly offcentre. The chance of causing pneumothorax by accidentalpuncture of aerated tissue increases with the size of the biopsydevice. Its safety, combined with its superior yield in lungcarcinoma, makes US-assisted FNAB the first choice for biopsyof lesions originating from the lung. In contrast, lesions arisingfrom the chest wall, pleura or mediastinum are, by theirnature, safe targets for CNB because they are not mobile onrespiration and are not surrounded by lung tissue. Such lesionsare also less likely to represent carcinomatous tumours, whichfavour CNB due to the better yield in comparison to FNAB. Asan added advantage, FNAB specimens are suited for ROSE,which is of proven value in transbronchial needle aspiration [7,8], as well as in CT-guided aspiration of chest lesions [9, 10].The sensitivity of ROSE for the presence of diagnostic materialwas 90% in the present study.The superior yield of FNAB in lung carcinoma in the presentstudy is intriguing. FNAB did not have a better yield than CNBin lung carcinomas in the large series by GONG et al. [4]reporting on CT-guided biopsies. This may partly be due toselection bias, because GONG et al. [4] only performed CNBwhen FNAB smears were considered suboptimal on immediateon-site assessment. Another explanation for the high rate offalse-negative CNB could lie in the nature of neoplastic lunglesions detectable on US. Such lesions often show a nonhomogenouspicture with a mixture of necrotic areas, vitaltumour and atelectatic lung tissue. A CNB pass can harvesta sizeable specimen from one area of the lesion, but thismight only contain nonrepresentative material [5].
Sedang diterjemahkan, harap tunggu..
Hasil (Bahasa Indonesia) 2:[Salinan]
Disalin!
Temuan utama dari perbandingan calon ini USassisted
FNAB dan CNB di 155 lesi dada campuran asal
hasil tinggi dikombinasikan diagnostik (87%), dengan tingkat rendah
komplikasi. FNAB dan CNB teknik pelengkap.
Dari semua tumor ganas, 18% didiagnosis dengan
hanya satu modalitas. Hasil dari FNAB saja secara signifikan
lebih tinggi pada karsinoma paru, sementara CNB unggul di semua lain
tumor ganas atau penyakit jinak. Hasil yang tinggi (95%)
dari US-dibantu FNAB di 89 kasus karsinoma paru secara klinis
relevan. Nyeri dada yang menunjukkan keterlibatan pleura adalah
gejala umum dari presentasi caranoma paru, dan
proporsi besar pasien ini mungkin memenuhi syarat untuk
US-dibantu FNAB. Prosedur ini aman, dapat dilakukan pada
sisi tempat tidur oleh dokter dada menggunakan alat yang sama seperti untuk
tap pleura atau getah bening diagnostik simpul aspirasi, dan mungkin
akan lebih baik untuk CTguided lebih mahal dan kurang nyaman
pendekatan dalam banyak kasus.
Dibandingkan dengan seri sebelumnya penulis saat 'dari 91 USassisted
CNB [3], hasil diagnostik yang tinggi telah dipertahankan
dengan tingkat pneumotoraks berkurang. Hal ini paling
mungkin karena kenyataan bahwa FNAB diganti CNB dalam situasi
dianggap oleh penyidik ​​untuk membawa peningkatan risiko untuk
pneumothorax. Hal ini wajar untuk menganggap bahwa FNAB menyebabkan
kerusakan jaringan kurang dari CNB dan karena itu merupakan inheren
prosedur yang lebih aman. Lesi kecil, terutama ketika ponsel pada
respirasi (gbr. 1), yang beresiko bocor sedikit dari
pusat. Kesempatan menyebabkan pneumothorax oleh kecelakaan
tusukan meningkat jaringan aerasi dengan ukuran biopsi
perangkat. Keamanannya, dikombinasikan dengan hasil yang unggul dalam paru-paru
karsinoma, membuat AS dibantu FNAB pilihan pertama untuk biopsi
dari lesi yang berasal dari paru-paru. Sebaliknya, lesi yang timbul
dari dinding dada, pleura atau mediastinum adalah, oleh mereka
alam, target aman untuk CNB karena mereka tidak bergerak pada
respirasi dan tidak dikelilingi oleh jaringan paru-paru. Lesi seperti
juga kurang mungkin untuk mewakili tumor karsinomatosa, yang
mendukung CNB karena hasil yang lebih baik dibandingkan dengan FNAB. Sebagai
keuntungan tambahan, spesimen FNAB cocok untuk ROSE,
yang merupakan nilai terbukti di transbronkial aspirasi jarum [7,
8], serta di aspirasi CT-dipandu lesi dada [9, 10].
Sensitivitas ROSE untuk Kehadiran bahan diagnostik
adalah 90% dalam penelitian ini.
Hasil unggul FNAB pada karsinoma paru di masa sekarang
studi adalah menarik. FNAB tidak memiliki hasil yang lebih baik daripada CNB
di karsinoma paru-paru dalam seri besar oleh GONG dkk. [4]
melaporkan biopsi CT-dipandu. Hal ini mungkin sebagian disebabkan oleh
bias seleksi, karena GONG dkk. [4] hanya dilakukan CNB
ketika FNAB smear dianggap suboptimal pada langsung
assessment di tempat. Penjelasan lain untuk tingkat tinggi
negatif palsu CNB bisa berbaring di sifat paru neoplastik
lesi terdeteksi pada AS. Lesi seperti sering menunjukkan homogen
gambar dengan campuran daerah nekrotik, penting
tumor dan jaringan paru-paru atelektasis. Sebuah CNB lulus dapat memanen
spesimen yang cukup besar dari satu daerah lesi, tapi ini
mungkin hanya berisi materi nonrepresentative [5].
Sedang diterjemahkan, harap tunggu..
 
Bahasa lainnya
Dukungan alat penerjemahan: Afrikans, Albania, Amhara, Arab, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahasa Indonesia, Basque, Belanda, Belarussia, Bengali, Bosnia, Bulgaria, Burma, Cebuano, Ceko, Chichewa, China, Cina Tradisional, Denmark, Deteksi bahasa, Esperanto, Estonia, Farsi, Finlandia, Frisia, Gaelig, Gaelik Skotlandia, Galisia, Georgia, Gujarati, Hausa, Hawaii, Hindi, Hmong, Ibrani, Igbo, Inggris, Islan, Italia, Jawa, Jepang, Jerman, Kannada, Katala, Kazak, Khmer, Kinyarwanda, Kirghiz, Klingon, Korea, Korsika, Kreol Haiti, Kroat, Kurdi, Laos, Latin, Latvia, Lituania, Luksemburg, Magyar, Makedonia, Malagasi, Malayalam, Malta, Maori, Marathi, Melayu, Mongol, Nepal, Norsk, Odia (Oriya), Pashto, Polandia, Portugis, Prancis, Punjabi, Rumania, Rusia, Samoa, Serb, Sesotho, Shona, Sindhi, Sinhala, Slovakia, Slovenia, Somali, Spanyol, Sunda, Swahili, Swensk, Tagalog, Tajik, Tamil, Tatar, Telugu, Thai, Turki, Turkmen, Ukraina, Urdu, Uyghur, Uzbek, Vietnam, Wales, Xhosa, Yiddi, Yoruba, Yunani, Zulu, Bahasa terjemahan.

Copyright ©2024 I Love Translation. All reserved.

E-mail: