[Skip to Content]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 54.211.112.177. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
[Skip to Content Landing]
Article
November 18, 1983

Abdominal Aspiration BiopsiesSonographic v Computed Tomographic Guidance

Author Affiliations

From the Departments of Radiology, University of Miami School of Medicine and Jackson Memorial Hospital, Miami. Dr Pelaez is now with Doctors Hospital of Lake Worth (Fla); Dr Hill is now with The George Washington University Medical Center, Washington, DC; Dr Dach is now with Hollywood (Fla) Memorial Hospital; and Dr Isikoff is now with Jess Parrish Memorial Hospital, Titusville, Fla.

JAMA. 1983;250(19):2663-2666. doi:10.1001/jama.1983.03340190065034
Abstract

One hundred eighty-four diagnostic aspirations performed on 169 patients were reviewed (1) to define the decision process regarding which guidance method (sonography v computed tomography) should be used on any given patient, and (2) to determine, once a guidance method was chosen, its accuracy and complication rate. Sonographic guidance (84%) proved to be an effective method for obtaining a correct diagnosis in 98% (110/112) of cystic masses and 79% (34/43) of solid masses. Computed tomography (16%) was used when sonography could not identify the mass or when the mass was small, deeply located, and often solid. Computed tomographic guidance provided a correct diagnosis in 100% (13/13) of cystic masses and 81% (13/16) of solid masses.

(JAMA 1983;250:2663-2666)

×