TY - JOUR
T1 - Electromagnetic Navigation Bronchoscopy
T2 - Where Are We Now? Five Years of a Single-Center Experience
AU - Patrucco, Filippo
AU - Gavelli, Francesco
AU - Daverio, Matteo
AU - Antonini, Cleto
AU - Boldorini, Renzo
AU - Casadio, Caterina
AU - Balbo, Piero E.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2018, Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.
PY - 2018/12/1
Y1 - 2018/12/1
N2 - Introduction: Electromagnetic navigation (ENB) is a guidance tool used in the diagnosis of solitary pulmonary nodules (SPNs) and masses. Its diagnostic yield is highly variable (38–71%) and a recent study has put in doubt the role of ENB in sampling SPNs in a real-life setting. The aim of this study is to describe the 5-year experience of our center with ENB, analyzing the population, possible confounding factors, and the diagnostic yield and accuracy of this technique. Methods: We conducted a retrospective observational study including all consecutive patients who underwent ENB for SPNs and masses from January 2011 to December 2015. Results: We included 113 patients; 79% had SPNs, 21% masses. The majority were localized in the upper and middle lobes (80%) and 61% presented a bronchus sign. 54% of the patients had a previous negative fluoroscopy-guided bronchoscopy. ENB achieved the diagnosis in 78 patients (69%) with 64 malignant and 14 were benign lesions. The diagnostic yield and accuracy of ENB were respectively 0.69 and 0.76. The only factor influencing the ability to reach a diagnosis was the presence of bronchus sign (p = 0.002). No procedural complications were reported. Conclusion: ENB is a safe procedure with a similar diagnostic yield in the real-life and research setting. Bronchus sign is an important factor in determining the diagnostic yield. ENB efficacy can be maximized by expertise and by a careful selection of each case.
AB - Introduction: Electromagnetic navigation (ENB) is a guidance tool used in the diagnosis of solitary pulmonary nodules (SPNs) and masses. Its diagnostic yield is highly variable (38–71%) and a recent study has put in doubt the role of ENB in sampling SPNs in a real-life setting. The aim of this study is to describe the 5-year experience of our center with ENB, analyzing the population, possible confounding factors, and the diagnostic yield and accuracy of this technique. Methods: We conducted a retrospective observational study including all consecutive patients who underwent ENB for SPNs and masses from January 2011 to December 2015. Results: We included 113 patients; 79% had SPNs, 21% masses. The majority were localized in the upper and middle lobes (80%) and 61% presented a bronchus sign. 54% of the patients had a previous negative fluoroscopy-guided bronchoscopy. ENB achieved the diagnosis in 78 patients (69%) with 64 malignant and 14 were benign lesions. The diagnostic yield and accuracy of ENB were respectively 0.69 and 0.76. The only factor influencing the ability to reach a diagnosis was the presence of bronchus sign (p = 0.002). No procedural complications were reported. Conclusion: ENB is a safe procedure with a similar diagnostic yield in the real-life and research setting. Bronchus sign is an important factor in determining the diagnostic yield. ENB efficacy can be maximized by expertise and by a careful selection of each case.
KW - Bronchoscopy
KW - Electromagnetic navigation bronchoscopy
KW - Lung cancer
KW - Solitary pulmonary nodule
KW - Transbronchial needle aspiration
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85053378099&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1007/s00408-018-0161-3
DO - 10.1007/s00408-018-0161-3
M3 - Article
SN - 0341-2040
VL - 196
SP - 721
EP - 727
JO - Lung
JF - Lung
IS - 6
ER -