|
|
|
题名
|
作者
|
年代
|
出处
|
被引量
|
| 1 | Autoimmune pancreatitis misdiagnosed as a tumor of the head of the pancreas显示文摘Autoimmune pancreatitis can mimic pancreatic cancer in its clinical presentation, imaging features and laboratory parameters. Differentiating between those two entities requires implementation of clinical judgment and experience along with objective parameters that may suggest either condition. Few strategies have been proposed for the surgeon to implement when facing borderline cases. The following case is an example of a clinical scenario compatible with an accepted algorithm for diagnosis of pancreatic cancer, which eventually proved wrong. We present a 75-year-old patient who was admitted for obstructive jaundice. Imaging features were highly suggestive for pancreatic cancer as was the carbohydrate antigen 19-9 (CA 19-9) level, leading to a decision for surgery. Pathological examination revealedautoimmune pancreatitis. Though no frank carcinoma was found, premalignant ductal changes of pancreatic intraepithelial neoplasia (PanIN)Ⅰand PanIN Ⅱ were discovered throughout the pancreatic duct. Caution is advised when relying on the combination of highly suggestive radiology features and elevated levels of CA 19-9 in the diagnosis of pancreatic cancer. When the tissue diagnosis is not conclusive, obtaining IgG4 and antinuclear Ab levels is advised, to rule out the rare possibility of autoimmune pancreatitis. Patients with autoimmune pancreatitis should be followed carefully as precancerous lesions may accompany the benign disease and the correlation of these two entities has not been ruled out. | Eran Brauner Jesse Lachter Offir Ben-Ishay Euvgeni Vlodavsky Yoram Kluger | 2012 | World Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery2012，4，7： | 4 |
| 2 | Endoscopic ultrasound: Current roles and future directions显示文摘Endoscopic ultrasound(EUS), developed in the 1980 s, was initially predominantly used for guidance of fine needle aspiration; the last 25 years, however, have witnessed a major expansion of EUS to various applications, both diagnostic and therapeutic. EUS has become much more than a tool to differentiate different tissue densities;tissue can now be characterized in great detail using modalities such as elastography; the extent of tissue vascularity can now be learned with increasing precision. Using these various techniques, targets for biopsy can be precisely pinpointed. Upon reaching the target, tissue can then be examined microscopically in real-time, ensuring optimal targeting and diagnosis. This article provides a comprehensive review of the various current roles of EUS, including drainage of lesions, visualization and characterization of lesions, injection, surgery, and vascular intervention. With EUS technology continuing to develop exponentially, the article emphasizes the future directions of each modality. | Scott R Friedberg Jesse Lachter | 2017 | World Journal of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy2017，9，10： | 2 |
| 3 | Accuracy and Quality Assessment of EUS-FNA: A Single-Center Large Cohort of Biopsies显示文摘 | Benjamin Ephraim Bluen Jesse Lachter Iyad Khamaysi Yassin Kamal Leonid Malkin Ruth Keren Ron Epelbaum Yoram Kluger Arthur Hoffman | 2012 | <journal-title>Diagnostic and Therapeutic Endoscopy2012，，： | 1 |
| 4 | Impact of endoscopic ultrasound quality assessment on improving endoscopic ultrasound reports and procedures显示文摘AIM: To evaluate the impact of endoscopic ultrasonography(EUS) quality assessment on EUS procedures by comparing the most recent 2013-2014 local EUS procedural reports against relevant corresponding data from a 2009 survey of EUS using standardized quality indicators(QIs). METHODS: Per EUS exam, 27 QIs were assessed individually and by grouping pre-, intra-, and postprocedural parameters. The recorded QI frequencies from 200 reports(2013-2014) were compared to corresponding data of 100 reports from the quality control study of EUS in 2009. Data for QIs added after 2009 to professional guidelines(added after 2010) were also tabulated. RESULTS: Significant differences(P-value < 0.05) were found for 13 of 20 of the relevant QIs examined. 4 of 5 pre-procedural QIs, 6 of 10 intra-procedural QIs, and 3 of 5 post-procedural QIs all demonstrated significant upgrading with a P-value < 0.05. CONCLUSION: Significant improvements were demonstrated in QI adherence and thus EUS reporting and delivery quality when the 2013-2014 reports were compared to 2009 results. QI implementation facilitates effective high-quality EUS exams by ensuring comprehensive documentation while limiting error. | Ryan Schwab Eugene Pahk Jesse Lachter | 2016 | World Journal of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy2016，8，8： | 1 |
| 5 | Establishing a quality indicator format for endoscopic ultrasound显示文摘AIM: To perform a quality control(QC) review of endoscopic ultrasound(EUS) with emphasis on current consensus established quality indicators. METHODS: A national quality control study of EUS was performed with expanded international comparison. Ten different healthcare institutions in Israel participated in coordination with University of Chicago Medical Center. Each Israeli center provided ten patient reports, compared with twenty reports from University of Chicago Medical Center. Quality indicator forms were prepared with sections to be completed before, during, and after EUS. Physician compliance to all listed indicators wasevaluated. Quality indicators were evaluated prior to, during, and after performing EUS. RESULTS: One hundred different EUS procedural reports were analyzed. The mean patient age was 59 years old. Indications for referral were mostly for pancreatic or biliary reasons. QC showed several strongly reported areas, including indications for EUS(97%), anesthesia given(94%), periprocedural pancreatic evaluation(87%), and an overall summary of the EUS examination(82%). Intermediately reported areas included patients' pertinent past medical history(71.7%), evaluation of the biliary tree(63%), and providing medical guidance about potential procedural adverse events, including pancreatitis and bleeding(52%). Half of the reports(50%) did not include a systemic organ evaluation. Other areas, including systematic reporting of screened organs(36%), description of fine needle aspiration(15%), tumor description via tumor-nodemetastasis(5%), and listing of adverse events(0%) were largely lacking from procedural documentation. CONCLUSION: Documenting specific EUS quality indicators including listing post-procedural recommendations may improve the quality and efficiency of future EUS examinations and subsequent patient follow-up. | Jesse Lachter Benjamin Bluen Irving Waxman Wafaa Bellan | 2013 | World Journal of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy2013，5，11： | 0 |
您所在的机构暂未开通此部分的功能，请联系管理员