Surgical advantage of modified labial salivary gland biopsy using chalazion forceps: a prospective randomized controlled study

• Published in: Clinical and experimental medicine 2024-08, Vol.24 (1), p.175, Article 175
• Main Authors: Li, Chunyan, Zheng, WenDan, Tian, Yingying, Chen, Yong, Chui, ShiYu, Luo, YuZuo, Lou, Xuejiao, Wang, Yuren, Tian, Mei
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Adult; Aged; Biopsy; Biopsy - instrumentation; Biopsy - methods; Bleeding; Case-Control Studies; Complications; Diagnosis; Exocrine glands; Eye diseases; Female; Hematology; Humans; Internal Medicine; Male; Medicine; Medicine & Public Health; Middle Aged; Oncology; Operative Time; Pain; Patients; Postoperative; Prospective Studies; Salivary gland; Salivary Glands - pathology; Salivary Glands - surgery; Sjogren's syndrome; Statistical analysis; Surgery; Surgical Instruments; Young Adult
• ISSN: 1591-9528; 1591-8890; 1591-9528
• DOI: 10.1007/s10238-024-01428-7

Labial salivary gland biopsy (LSGB) is one of the specific diagnostic criteria for primary Sjögren's syndrome (pSS). In traditional LSGB, there is no lower lip fixation device, the field of view is unclear due to intraoperative bleeding, and the incision is large, which is unfavourable for healing. The use of auxiliary devices to improve the shortcomings of traditional LSGB technique would be meaningful. Therefore, this case–control study aimed to assess the value of modified LSGB using chalazion forceps as compared with traditional LSGB. After obtaining written informed consent from all participating parents and patients, we randomly assigned 217 eligible participants to undergo LSGB using chalazion forceps (n = 125) or traditional LSGB (n = 92). The outcome variables were surgical time, incision length, intraoperative bleeding, pain score at 24 h after surgery, incision healing status at 7 days after surgery, gland collection, and pathological results. The final diagnostic results of the two surgical methods were compared, and the match rates between the pathological results and the final clinical diagnoses were compared between the two groups. The data were analysed using parametric and nonparametric tests. Compared with the traditional group, the modified group had a smaller incision, shorter operative time, less blood loss, lower 24 h pain score, and better Grade A incision healing at 7 days after surgery ( p   0.05). By multivariable regression analysis, only a focus score (FS) of ≥ 1 ( p