Pneumothorax Rate and Diagnostic Adequacy of Computed Tomography-guided Lung Nodule Biopsies Performed With 18 G Versus 20 G Needles: A Cross-Sectional Study.
Journal of thoracic imaging
PURPOSE: Conflicting data exist with regard to the effect of needle gauge on outcomes of computed tomography (CT)-guided lung nodule biopsies. The purpose of this study was to compare the complication and diagnostic adequacy rates between 2 needle sizes: 18 G and 20 G in CT-guided lung nodule biopsies.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective cohort study examined CT-guided lung biopsies performed between March 2014 and August 2016 with a total of 550 patients between the ages of 30 and 94. Biopsies were performed using an 18-G or a 20-G needle. Procedure-associated pneumothorax and other complication rates were compared between the 2 groups. Univariate and multiple logistic regression analyses were performed.
RESULTS: There was no significant difference in pneumothorax rate between 18 G (n=125) versus 20 G (n=425) (rates: 25.6% vs. 28.7%; P=0.50; odds ratio [OR]=0.86; 95% confidence interval [CI]=0.54-1.35), chest tube insertion rate (4.8% vs. 5.6%; P=0.71; OR=0.84; 95% CI=0.34-2.11), or diagnostic adequacy (95% vs. 93%; P=0.36; OR=1.51; 95% CI=0.61-3.72). Multiple logistic regression analysis demonstrated emphysema along the biopsy path (OR=3.12; 95% CI=1.63-5.98) and nodule distance from the pleural surface ≥4 cm (OR=1.85; 95% CI=1.05-3.28) to be independent risk factors for pneumothorax.
CONCLUSION: No statistically significant difference in pneumothorax rate or diagnostic adequacy was found between 18-G versus 20-G core biopsy needles. Independent risk factors for pneumothorax include emphysema along the biopsy path and nodule distance from the pleural surface.
Kolderman NC, Cheti DR, Hasbrook CD, Forsyth AJ, Coffey MP, Nair GB, Al-Katib SA. Pneumothorax Rate and Diagnostic Adequacy of Computed Tomography-guided Lung Nodule Biopsies Performed With 18 G Versus 20 G Needles: A Cross-Sectional Study. J Thorac Imaging. 2020 Jul;35(4):265-269. doi: 10.1097/RTI.0000000000000481. PMID: 32032253.