Comparative study on efficacy and safety of ultrasound guided transoral and transcutaneous core needle biopsy in patients with oral masses

Abstract

Background Ultrasound (US) guided transoral biopsy is a novel and safe procedure for obtaining tissue in patients with oral masses. However, this procedure is less commonly used in comparison to US guided transcutaneous biopsy. The aim of this study is to compare the efficacy and safety of US-guided transoral and transcutaneous core needle biopsy (CNB) in patients with oral masses. Methods From November 2019 to March 2021, consecutive patients with oral masses were randomly assigned to undergo US-guided transoral CNB (transoral group) and US-guided transcutaneous CNB from a submental approach (transcutaneous group). During the operation, procedure time, intra‑operative blood loss volume, diagnostic performance, rate of complications and pain level were recorded and compared. Results There were 112 patients (62 in the transoral group and 50 in the transcutaneous group) evaluated in this study. The postprocedural complication rate of the transcutaneous group was significantly higher than the transoral group (24% vs. 0%, P = 0.000). There was no significant difference in accuracy (95.2% vs. 88%, P = 0.30), biopsy time (76 ± 12 s vs. 80 ± 13 s, p = 0.09), blood losses (2.6 ± 0.5 mL vs. 2.7 ± 0.4 mL, p = 0.17) and visual analogue score (p = 0.327 and p = 0.444 before and after the sampling procedure) between the two groups. Conclusion US-guided transoral CNB results in high rates of technical success and lower rates of postprocedural complications.

Multimodality Imaging Assessment of Desmoid Tumors: The Great Mime in the Era of Multidisciplinary Teams

“…Ultrasound (US) is an inexpensive tool, widely available and safe since it does not use ionizing radiation so that the examination can be repeated several times, even in risk categories such as children and pregnant women [ 111 , 112 , 113 , 114 , 115 , 116 ]. US plays a limited role mainly in the delineation of mass and lesions involving the abdominal wall, chest wall, breast and extremities.…”

“…US plays a limited role mainly in the delineation of mass and lesions involving the abdominal wall, chest wall, breast and extremities. However, due to operator dependence and the poor performance of small intra-abdominal lesions, the necessity for patient collaboration reduces the sensitivity and specificity both in detection and characterization [ 111 , 112 , 113 , 114 , 115 , 116 ].…”

“…So, CT or MRI scans can not only help for diagnosis but also in determining the relationship between tumors and the surrounding organs to obtain proper pre-treatment planning. Otherwise, although US assessment is safe since it does not use ionizing radiation so that the examination can be repeated several times [ 111 , 112 , 113 , 114 , 115 , 116 ], it plays a limited role in the delineation of mass and lesions involving the abdominal wall, chest wall, breast and extremities. However, due to operator dependence and the poor performance of small intra-abdominal lesions, there is a necessity for patient collaboration to reduce the sensitivity and specificity both in the detection and characterization of these tumors.…”

“…Inexpensive; widely available; safe [111][112][113][114][115][116] Requires high spatial resolution to obtain sufficient anatomical detail for the detection of deep lesions and for targeting interventional procedures [80] Multiparametric approach; the exceptional contrast resolution; functional assessment [138][139][140][141][142][143]…”

“…Operator dependence; poor performance for small intra-abdominal lesions; patient's collaboration [111][112][113][114][115][116] Radiation exposure [97] Long examination and interpretation time; high costs [97]…”