Abdominal Aspiration Biopsies
Sonographic v Computed Tomographic Guidance
- Juan Carlos Pelaez, MD;
- Michael C. Hill, MB;
- Jeffrey L. Dach, MD;
- Michael B. Isikoff, MD;
- Berta Morse, MD
- From the Departments of Radiology, University of Miami School of Medicine and Jackson Memorial Hospital, Miami. Dr Pelaez is now with Doctors Hospital of Lake Worth (Fla); Dr Hill is now with The George Washington University Medical Center, Washington, DC; Dr Dach is now with Hollywood (Fla) Memorial Hospital; and Dr Isikoff is now with Jess Parrish Memorial Hospital, Titusville, Fla.
Abstract
One hundred eighty-four diagnostic aspirations performed on 169 patients were reviewed (1) to define the decision process regarding which guidance method (sonography v computed tomography) should be used on any given patient, and (2) to determine, once a guidance method was chosen, its accuracy and complication rate. Sonographic guidance (84%) proved to be an effective method for obtaining a correct diagnosis in 98% (110/112) of cystic masses and 79% (34/43) of solid masses. Computed tomography (16%) was used when sonography could not identify the mass or when the mass was small, deeply located, and often solid. Computed tomographic guidance provided a correct diagnosis in 100% (13/13) of cystic masses and 81% (13/16) of solid masses.
(JAMA 1983;250:2663-2666)
Footnotes
-
Reprint requests to Department of Radiology, The George Washington University Medical Center, 901 23rd St NW, Washington, DC 20037 (Dr Hill).
