Home | About us | Editorial Board | Search | Ahead of print | Current Issue | Archives | Instructions | Online submissionContact Us   |  Subscribe   |  Advertise   |  Login  Page layout
Wide layoutNarrow layoutFull screen layout
Lung India Official publication of Indian Chest Society  
  Users Online: 888   Home Print this page  Email this page Small font size Default font size Increase font size
Year : 2017  |  Volume : 34  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 43-46

Radial endobronchial ultrasound for the diagnosis of bronchoscopically invisible lesions: First case series from India

1 Rajiv Gandhi Cancer Institute and Research Center, New Delhi, India
2 Nayati Healthcare and Research Center, Mathura, Uttar Pradesh, India

Correspondence Address:
Kedar Ravi Hibare
203, Sri Paduka, 1st L Mn, 1st Blk, N'bhavi – 2nd Stg, Bengaluru - 560 072 Karnataka
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/0970-2113.197100

Rights and Permissions

Background: A peripheral, bronchoscopically invisible pulmonary lesion is a diagnostic challenge. Transthoracic needle aspiration has long been the investigation of choice but runs the risk of pneumothorax (up to 44%). Newer technologies like radial endobronchial ultrasound (R-EBUS) offer a safer approach. We present our results of R-EBUS in the diagnosis of bronchoscopically invisible lesions. This is the first large case series from India. Aims: (1) To determine the yield of R-EBUS for the diagnosis of bronchoscopically invisible lesions. (2) To compare the yields of forceps versus cryobiopsies in the diagnosis of these lesions. Setting: Tertiary care cancer center. Design: Prospective study. Methods: Consecutive patients presenting between January and October 2015 with bronchoscopically invisible peripheral pulmonary lesions were included. R-EBUS was used to localize and sample the lesion and the yields were analyzed. Yields of cryo and forceps biopsy were compared where both methods had been used. Data were analyzed using SPSS version 22. Results: A definite diagnosis obtained in 67.3% (37/55) patients with no major complications. No significant difference was found in yield between: (1) small (<3 cm) and large (>3 cm) lesions: (46.2% versus 78.6%, P = 0.38). (2) central and adjacent lesions: 61.5% versus 70%. (3) forceps and cryobiopsy (n = 28, 75% versus 67.9% P = 0.562). Conclusions: R-EBUS is a safe procedure in our setting and its yield is comparable to that reported in literature. The yield of central and adjacent lesions and forceps or cryobiopsy appears similar. Further refinements in the technique could improve yield.

Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded271    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal