Search

Objective: Image-guided sternal biopsy may be technically daunting given the immediately subjacent critical structures. There is a paucity of literature describing technique, safety, and efficacy. This study aims to quantify the diagnostic yield and safety of image-guided sternal biopsies. Secondary aims include (1) describing the preferred approach/technique and (2) identifying imaging features and disease entities associated with higher and lower diagnostic yields. Materials and methods: A retrospective review of 50 image-guided sternal biopsies performed at two quaternary care centers from 2000 to 2019 was performed. Recorded lesion-related variables included as follows: location, density, extraosseous extension, and size. Recorded variables from electronic medical records included as follows: patient demographics, histologic or microbiological diagnosis, and complications. Recorded technique-related variables included as follows: needle obliquity, type, and gauge; biopsy core number and length; and modality. Results: Of the 50 biopsies, 88.0% resulted in a definitive histologic diagnosis. Six biopsies were non-diagnostic. The majority of biopsies were performed under computed tomography (88.0%), followed by ultrasound (12.0%). Tumor was the most common biopsy indication (90.0%), followed by infection (10.0%). Of the diagnostic biopsies indicated for tumor, 88.9% were malignant. Seventy-four percent of the lesions were predominantly lytic. Fifty percent of lesions had extraosseous extension. Lesion locations were as follows: manubrium (48.0%), sternal body (48.0%), and sternomanubrial joint (4.0%). No minor or major, acute, or delayed procedure-related complications were encountered. Conclusion: Image-guided sternal biopsy is an efficacious and safe method of obtaining a definitive histologic diagnosis regardless of lesion-specific features or location. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Clinicians rely on patient self‐report of impairment during seizures for decisions including driving eligibility. However, the reliability of patient reports on cognitive and behavioral functions during seizures remains unknown. Methods: We administered a daily questionnaire to epilepsy patients undergoing continuous video‐EEG monitoring, asking about responsiveness, speech, memory, awareness, and consciousness during seizures in the preceding 24 hours. We also administered a questionnaire upon admission about responsiveness, speech, and awareness during seizures. Subjective questionnaire answers were compared with objective behavioral ratings on video review. Criteria for agreement were Cohen's kappa >0.60 and proportions of positive and negative agreement both >0.75. Results: We analyzed 86 epileptic seizures in 39 patients. Memory report on the daily questionnaire met criteria for agreement with video review (κ = 0.674 for early, 0.743 for late recall). Subjective report of awareness also met agreement criteria with video ratings of memory (κ = 0.673 early, 0.774 late). Concordance for speech was relatively good (κ = 0.679) but did not meet agreement criteria, nor did responsiveness or consciousness. On the admission questionnaire, agreement criteria were met for subjective report of awareness versus video ratings of memory (κ = 0.814 early, 0.806 late), but not for other comparisons. Interpretation: Patient self‐report of memory or awareness showed the best concordance with objective memory impairment during seizures. Self‐report of impairment in other categories was less reliable. These findings suggest that patient reports about impaired memory during seizures may be most reliable, and otherwise determining functional impairments should be based on objective observations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]