Pleural controversy: close needle pleural biopsy or thoracoscopy-which first?

摘要

The most efficient and cost-effective approach to the diagnosis of pleural exudates remains controversial. Important considerations include the respective diagnostic yields of thoracocentesis, closed pleural biopsy and thoracoscopy; the incremental gain in diagnostic yield when sequentially combining these investigations; and the role of various image modalities. The diagnostic yield of thoracocentesis is in the order of 60% for malignancy and >90% for tuberculosis. A second aspiration may increase the yield for malignancy, but a third is generally superfluous. Many authorities consider thoracoscopy the investigation of choice in exudative pleural effusions where a thoracocentesis was nondiagnostic and particularly when malignancy is suspected. It allows for the direct inspection of the pleura and for talc poudrage. Thoracoscopy has a diagnostic yield of 91-95% for malignant disease and as high as 100% for pleural tuberculosis. Access to thoracoscopy is, however, limited in many parts of the world, as significant resources and expertise are required. Blind closed pleural biopsy has a yield of 80% for tuberculosis and <60% for pleural malignancy. Recent studies suggest that CT and/or ultrasound guidance may improve the yield, particularly for malignancy, where it may be as high as 88% and 83%, respectively. A second thoracocentesis combined with an image-assisted pleural biopsy with either an Abrams needle or cutting needle, depending on the setting, may therefore be an acceptable alternative to thoracoscopy. With such an approach, thoracoscopy may potentially be reserved for cases not diagnosed by means of closed pleural biopsy.