RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Endoscopic ultrasound guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS FNA) is the first-line modality to diagnose suspected solid pancreatic malignant lesions. Elastography-guided FNA has been shown to improve the diagnostic yield of EUS FNA but prospective studies are limited. The aim of the study was to compare diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity and specificity of conventional and elastography-guided EUS FNA in patients with suspected malignant pancreatic solid masses. METHODS: Patients with suspected malignant solid pancreatic lesions presenting to our institute from July 2021 to January 2023 were recruited and randomized to conventional and elastography-guided EUS FNA using a 22-G EUS FNA needle. Diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, specificity and positive and negative predictive values were calculated. RESULTS: Total 48 patients were initially screened for inclusion in the study, of which six were excluded and 42 patients underwent randomization. Finally, 20 patients in each group underwent the assigned intervention and were analyzed further. Baseline patient characteristics were similar in conventional FNA and elastography-guided FNA group with median age 52 (range 29-74) years and 51.8 (range 31-72) years, respectively, males being 70% and 75%, respectively. Median size of the lesion was 34 mm (range 14-48 mm) and 37 (range 18 to 50 mm), respectively, for both conventional and elastography arm. The average size of the lesion was 35.7 mm. Overall, the diagnosis of adenocarcinoma was made in 65% of cases. In the remaining cases, diagnoses were inflammatory mass, Castleman's disease, solid pseudopapillary epithelial neoplasm (SPEN), diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), pancreatic gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) and metastasis. Conventional EUS FNA had diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, specificity and positive and negative predictive values of 90%, 87.5%, 100%, 100% and 62.92%, respectively, and elastography-guided EUS FNA had diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, specificity and positive and negative predictive values of 85%, 100%, 100% and 54.59%, respectively. No severe adverse events were noted. CONCLUSION: There is no significant difference between conventional and elastography-guided EUS FNA in terms of diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, specificity and positive and negative predictive values. Both techniques appear safe and effective for characterizing solid pancreatic masses and elastography did not score numerically over the conventional arm.
Asunto(s)
Colangiopancreatografia Retrógrada Endoscópica , Pancreatitis , Tomografía Computarizada por Rayos X , Humanos , Colangiopancreatografia Retrógrada Endoscópica/efectos adversos , Colangiopancreatografia Retrógrada Endoscópica/métodos , Pancreatitis/etiología , Pancreatitis/epidemiología , Medición de Riesgo , Factores de RiesgoRESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: Shankhaprakshalana (SP) is a yogic method aiming to cleanse the bowel. It involves the use of warm saline water and a combination of five asanas. This study was designed to assess the effectiveness and safety of bowel preparation by SP. METHODS: This is a retrospective observational study of prospectively collected data. Patients planned for colonoscopy were screened and enrolled to undergo bowel preparation by SP on the day of the colonoscopy. Patients having comorbid conditions, poor performance status, suspected or previously diagnosed intestinal stricture and past history of major abdominal surgery and those unable to perform asanas of SP were excluded. A low-fiber diet was advised for one day before the colonoscopy. Patients were advised to drink 400 mL of lukewarm saline water followed by five asanas (exercises) of SP, each done eight times dynamically and sequentially. After completing six such cycles, patients underwent colonoscopy. Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) score was used to assess the quality of bowel preparation. RESULTS: Total 238 patients were included. The major indications for colonoscopy were abdominal pain (35.3%), hematochezia (23.9%), diarrhea (20.2%), constipation (10.9%) and anemia (9.7%). The mean age was 37.7 (± 12) years. The mean BBPS was 8 (± 1.2). Bowel preparation was inadequate (BBPS < 6) in only two patients. Mean segmental BBPS for the three segments of the colon (right, transverse and left) was 2.6 (± 0.5), 2.7 (± 0.4) and 2.6 (± 0.7), respectively. Minor adverse events (nausea, abdominal pain, vomiting, giddiness and bloating) were noted in 10 participants (4.2%), which did not require hospitalization. Bowel preparation was completed in 133 (± 35) minutes. CONCLUSION: Shankhaprakshalana is an effective and safe method to achieve adequate bowel preparation before colonoscopy. Since this is a single-center and retrospective study, future multi-centric, prospective studies comparing it with the standard bowel preparation regimens are warranted.