Comparison of Fine Needle Aspiration Cytology Versus Open Biopsy for Chronic Cervical Lymphadenopathy
Keywords:
Cervical lymphadenopathy; fine needle aspiration cytology; open biopsyAbstract
Introduction: Open biopsy is considered ideal for diagnosis of cervical lymphadenopathy. Fine needle aspiration cytology (FNAC) is safe, less invasive and cost effective as compared to open biopsy. However, its diagnostic efficacy remains in debates. This study was conducted to know how accurately FNAC can detect the pathology as compared to open biopsy. Objective: To compare the diagnostic efficacy of FNAC and open biopsy for chronic cervical lymphadenopathy. Methodology: This comparative study was conducted at department of Surgery, Lahore General Hospital, Lahore. The study was completed in six months including 96 patients with diagnosis of cervical lymphadenopathy. All the patients had FNAC followed by open biopsy. The diagnostic efficacy of the two techniques was compared by calculating sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic accuracy of each technique. Results: The diagnostic accuracy of FNAC for tuberculosis, metastatic carcinoma, Hodgkin’s lymphoma, non Hodgkin’s lymphoma, reactive hyperplasia and chronic nonspecific lymphadenopathy were 92.6%, 100%, 85.7%, 87.5%, 100% and 100%, respectively. Conclusions: FNAC is reliable and safe technique with high diagnostic efficacy and should be preceded as first line investigation in management of cervical lymphadenopathy.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
The Journal of Fatima Jinnah Medical University follows the Attribution Creative Commons-Non commercial (CC BY-NC) license which allows the users to copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format, remix, transform and build upon the material. The users must give credit to the source and indicate, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. However, the CC By-NC license restricts the use of material for commercial purposes. For further details about the license please check the Creative Commons website. The editorial board of JFJMU strives hard for the authenticity and accuracy of the material published in the journal. However, findings and statements are views of the authors and do not necessarily represent views of the Editorial Board.
