Endoscopic ultrasound characteristics of tubercular lymphadenopathy in comparison to reactive lymph nodes

Aim Tuberculosis is a common disease in India with significant morbidity and mortality. Limited data is available on the description of tubercular lymphadenopathy on endoscopic ultrasound. Methods Retrospective data of 116 lymph nodes in 113 patients was evaluated at a tertiary care center. Lymphade...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Indian journal of gastroenterology 2016, Vol.35 (1), p.55-59
Hauptverfasser: Bodh, Vijay, Choudhary, Narendra S., Puri, Rajesh, Kumar, Naveen, Rai, Rahul, Nasa, Mukesh, Singh, Rajiv Ranjan, Sarin, Haimanti, Guleria, Mridula, Sud, Randhir
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Aim Tuberculosis is a common disease in India with significant morbidity and mortality. Limited data is available on the description of tubercular lymphadenopathy on endoscopic ultrasound. Methods Retrospective data of 116 lymph nodes in 113 patients was evaluated at a tertiary care center. Lymphadenopathy in the mediastinum and abdomen were included. The study was aimed at identifying the endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) features of tubercular lymphadenopathy and comparing them with reactive lymphadenopathy in patients with pyrexia of unknown origin. Results The following features were suggestive of tubercular lymphadenopathy ( n  = 55) as compared to reactive lymphadenopathy ( n  = 61): hypoechoic echotexture (94.5 % vs. 75.4 %, p 0.004), patchy anechoic/hypoechoic areas (30.2 % vs. 0 %, p  = 0.000), calcification (24.5 % vs. 0 %, p  = 0.000), sharply demarcated borders (34.5 % vs. 9.8 %, p  = 0.001), pus like material on aspirate (18.2 % vs. 0 %, p 0.000), and conglomeration of lymph nodes (10.9 % vs. 0 %, p  = 0.009). The tubercular lymph nodes were significantly larger than reactive nodes at long axis and short axis diameter (2.4 ± 1.1 vs. 1.6 ± 0.6 cm, p  
ISSN:0254-8860
0975-0711
DOI:10.1007/s12664-016-0627-2