Abstract
s / Pancreatology 12 (2012) 502–597 587 or Echobrush (group II). Main outcome was the percentage of correct diagnosis by Echobrush versus FNA. Complication rate was also evaluated. Data were compared by chi-square test. Results: 65 patients (mean age 64 years, range 31-84, 33 male) were included (34 in group-I and 31 in group-II). Three of the patients allocated to group II with the lesion in the head of the pancreas had to be changed to group I since Echobrush was technically unfeasible. CPL mean size was 28.2mm (range 16-60mm). Final diagnosis was IPMN (n1⁄432), serous cystoadenoma (n1⁄410), pseudocyst (n1⁄411), mucinous cysotadenoma/cystoadenocarcinoma (n1⁄45), pancreatic adenocarcinoma (n1⁄45), PanIn lesion (n1⁄41), and inconclusive diagnosis (n1⁄41). A correct diagnosis was achieved in 19/37 cases from group I (50.1%) and in 11/27 cases from group II (40.7%) (p1⁄40.28). There were twomild complications in group I and one in group II (mild bleeding). Conclusions: The use of Echobrush does not improve the diagnostic accuracy of standard EUS-FNA for the differential diagnosis of CPL.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
