If intra-bony lesions of considerable size, the buccal plate of bone could be easily penetrated with needle to get sample. I think that the accuracy of fine needle same as incisional biopsy but less traumatic and with fewer post operative complications than incisional biopsy.
Fine needle aspiration biopsy is easy and convenient method for diagnosis of intrabony lesions but direct microscobic evaluation ( by partial or complete removal of the lesion) of the lesion lining may be more accurate for provisional diagnosis
The most proper and accurate is the incisional biopsy (100% vs FNA 87-95%)
FNAC even in soft tissues is not very reliable ,i will always prefer a incisional or excisional biopsy.ofcourse it is more traumatic compared to FNAC, but excisional biopsies can be curative also in carefully chosen lesions
If by intrabony lesion you mean a soft tissue inclusion within alveolar bone of the mouth I would argue for surgical access and either a curettage or a trephine cut of a core of bone and soft tissue. A fine needle may well penetrate bone, but equally might bend , blunt or deform. A solid block of suspect tissue will give not only cellular evidence but histological cell organisation information which should give a better prospect of correct diagnosis.
If the lesion is in a skeletal bone elsewhere it may be possible to do a trephine sampling if the lesion is sizeable and well localised. If not , our Radiologists / Pathologists prefer the more substantial core needle technique rather than fine needle , for the same reasons as above.
Thank you but i talking about the accuracy and you mentioned that traditional methods more accurate. I reserve the needle technique for surgically risk patients or compromised to avoid exposure to G.A twice.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Social Psychology
- Attitude