The role of medical thoracoscopic lung biopsy in diagnosis of diffuse parenchymal lung diseases

Role of medical thoracoscopy in diagnosis of pleuropulmonary lesions

“…Pain occurred in all patients, and it was mild to moderate and was controlled by NSAID medications. This is of the same opinion of Elhadidy et al [26] and Omar et al [25] In the present study, 4 (10%) cases were complicated with pneumothorax following elimination of the chest tube but it improved by supplementary high-flow O2 without the need for reinsertion of another ICT. This agrees with Boutin et al [27] who reported pneumothorax in 10.6% of patients (8 out of 75) but disagrees with Omar et al [25], who reported pneumothorax in 6.7%, of patients (1 out of 15) and it resolved by supplementary high-flow oxygen and needed ICT insertion and Elnady et al [30], who reported pneumothorax in 20% of patients (2 out of 10); this pneumothorax resolved by supplementary high-flow oxygen without the need for reinsertion of another ICT.…”

“…In our study, no significant bleeding had occurred. This result agrees with Elnady et al [30] who founded that bleeding was negligible (occurred in only one patient and it was about 20 ml) and Omar et al [25] but disagrees with Elhadidy et al [26] who reported minor bleeding in 50% of patients. No local wound infection occurred in patients after insertion of ICT and this disagrees with Hatata et al [37] who detected it in one case (6.7%) and was managed by local medical treatment.…”

“…[13], who detected malignancy in 74.4% including malignant pleural mesothelioma in 47.01%, metastatic adenocarcinoma in 22.2%, spindle cell carcinoma in 0.85% and lymphoma in 4.27% and benign lesions in 25.6% including tuberculous pleurisy in 4.27%, SLE in 0.85%, sarcoidosis in 1.71%, empyema in 5.13% and chronic non specific pleurisy in 13.7%, Jiang et al [14] [23], the demonstrative yield was 66.7% (12 of the18 patients) and Ng et al [24], who achieved demonstrative yield of 45.5% (10 of 22 patients). In G2; the demonstrative yield was 100% and a similar demonstrative yield was reported by Omar et al [25], Elhadidy et al [26], Elhadidy and Rezk. [16] and Boutin et al [27].…”

“…In our study, the final histopathological diagnosis was hypersensitivity pneumonitis in 20%, UIP in 17.5%, NSIP in 15%, DIP in 10%, LAM in 10%, COP in 7.5%, alveolar proteinosis in 5%, sarcoidosis in 5%, invasive mucoid adenocarcinoma in 5%, Metastatic adenocarcinoma (gastric) in 2.5% and Pneumoconiosis (silicosis) in 2.5%. In comparison to a study done by Omar et al [25] the commonest histopathological diagnosis was extrinsic allergic alveolitis (40%), malignancy (33.3%), IIPS (13.3%), sarcoidosis (6.7%) and tuberculosis (6.7%). Our results disagree with a study done by Elhadidy et al [26], in which the commonest histopathological diagnosis was UIP pattern (38.9%), followed by adenocarcinoma (22.2%), NSIP (11.1%), and BOOP, silicosis, lymphoma, RB-ILD, and TB (5.6% each) and disagree with a study done by Elhadidy and Rezk.…”

“…No local wound infection occurred in patients after insertion of ICT and this disagrees with Hatata et al [37] who detected it in one case (6.7%) and was managed by local medical treatment. No cases of empyema after ICT insertion was reported in our study and this agrees with Omar et al [25] however disagrees with Xaubet et al [47] and Elhadidy et al [26] who reported empyema in solely one case (5.6%) and was managed by antibiotics. The expressed rate of empyema in the previous thoracoscopic inquires about extents from 0% in numerous looks into [21] [44] , 0.5% (5 of 1145cases) [47], 0.6% (1 of 147 cases) [46], 1% (6 of 556 cases) [43], 2% (4 of 182 cases) [8], 2.5% (9 of 360 cases) [48], 4% (6 of 149 cases) [40], 4.8% (2 of42 cases) [42] to10%( 3 of 30cases) [45].…”