Comparing the diagnostic adequacy of 25-Gauge fork-tip versus franseen versus reverse-bevel-type needles in EUS–guided tissue acquisition: A prospective randomized study with a retrospective control

IF 4.4 1区 医学 Q1 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY
Adam Haig, Andrew St John, Kasturi Vaska, Xuan Banh, Alexander Huelsen
{"title":"Comparing the diagnostic adequacy of 25-Gauge fork-tip versus franseen versus reverse-bevel-type needles in EUS–guided tissue acquisition: A prospective randomized study with a retrospective control","authors":"Adam Haig, Andrew St John, Kasturi Vaska, Xuan Banh, Alexander Huelsen","doi":"10.1097/eus.0000000000000025","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<h3>Background and Objectives </h3>\n<p>EUS–guided fine-needle biopsy (FNB) is an established technique for the acquisition of tissue to diagnose lesions of the gastrointestinal tract and surrounding organs. Recently, newer-generation FNB needles have been introduced, including a second-generation reverse-bevel and the third-generation fork-tip and Franseen needles. We aimed to determine if there was any difference between these needles in terms of cytopathological diagnostic yield, sample cellularity, or sample bloodiness.</p>\n<h3>Methods </h3>\n<p>One hundred twenty-seven consecutive patients undergoing EUS–guided FNB of any solid lesion were randomized to use either a Franseen or fork-tip needle in a 1:1 ratio and were compared with 60 consecutive historical cases performed with reverse-bevel needles. Patient and procedure characteristics were recorded. Cases were reviewed by a blinded cytopathologist and graded based on cellularity and bloodiness. Overall diagnostic yield was calculated for each study arm.</p>\n<h3>Results </h3>\n<p>One hundred seventy-six cases were eligible for analysis, including 109 pancreatic masses, 24 lymphoid lesions, 17 subepithelial lesions, and 26 other lesions. The final diagnosis was malignancy in 127 cases (72%). EUS–guided FNB was diagnostic in 141 cases (80%) overall and in 89% of cases where malignancy was the final diagnosis. There was no difference in diagnostic yield, sample cellularity, or sample bloodiness between the different needle types. There was no difference in adverse events between groups.</p>\n<h3>Conclusions </h3>\n<p>EUS–guided FNB performed using 25-gauge Franseen, fork-tip, and reverse-bevel needles resulted in similar diagnostic yield, sample cellularity, and sample bloodiness. Our results may not be extrapolated to larger-caliber needles of the same design.</p>","PeriodicalId":11577,"journal":{"name":"Endoscopic Ultrasound","volume":"24 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Endoscopic Ultrasound","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/eus.0000000000000025","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background and Objectives 

EUS–guided fine-needle biopsy (FNB) is an established technique for the acquisition of tissue to diagnose lesions of the gastrointestinal tract and surrounding organs. Recently, newer-generation FNB needles have been introduced, including a second-generation reverse-bevel and the third-generation fork-tip and Franseen needles. We aimed to determine if there was any difference between these needles in terms of cytopathological diagnostic yield, sample cellularity, or sample bloodiness.

Methods 

One hundred twenty-seven consecutive patients undergoing EUS–guided FNB of any solid lesion were randomized to use either a Franseen or fork-tip needle in a 1:1 ratio and were compared with 60 consecutive historical cases performed with reverse-bevel needles. Patient and procedure characteristics were recorded. Cases were reviewed by a blinded cytopathologist and graded based on cellularity and bloodiness. Overall diagnostic yield was calculated for each study arm.

Results 

One hundred seventy-six cases were eligible for analysis, including 109 pancreatic masses, 24 lymphoid lesions, 17 subepithelial lesions, and 26 other lesions. The final diagnosis was malignancy in 127 cases (72%). EUS–guided FNB was diagnostic in 141 cases (80%) overall and in 89% of cases where malignancy was the final diagnosis. There was no difference in diagnostic yield, sample cellularity, or sample bloodiness between the different needle types. There was no difference in adverse events between groups.

Conclusions 

EUS–guided FNB performed using 25-gauge Franseen, fork-tip, and reverse-bevel needles resulted in similar diagnostic yield, sample cellularity, and sample bloodiness. Our results may not be extrapolated to larger-caliber needles of the same design.

在 EUS 引导下采集组织时,比较 25 号叉尖针与法兰针和反向斜面针的诊断充分性:带有回顾性对照的前瞻性随机研究
背景和目的 胃肠道超声引导下细针活检(FNB)是一种获取组织以诊断胃肠道及其周围器官病变的成熟技术。最近,新一代的 FNB 针已经问世,包括第二代反斜面针、第三代叉尖针和 Franseen 针。我们的目的是确定这些针头在细胞病理学诊断率、样本细胞性或样本血性方面是否存在差异。方法 连续 127 例在 EUS 引导下对任何实体病灶进行 FNB 的患者按 1:1 的比例随机使用 Franseen 针或叉尖针,并与连续 60 例使用反向斜面针的历史病例进行比较。患者和手术特征均被记录在案。病例由盲法细胞病理学家审查,并根据细胞度和血性进行分级。结果 符合分析条件的病例有 176 例,包括 109 例胰腺肿块、24 例淋巴病变、17 例上皮下病变和 26 例其他病变。最终诊断为恶性肿瘤的有 127 例(72%)。在 EUS 引导下进行 FNB 诊断的病例共有 141 例(80%),最终诊断为恶性肿瘤的病例占 89%。不同类型的针头在诊断率、样本细胞度或样本血性方面没有差异。结论 在 EUS 引导下使用 25 号 Franseen 针、叉尖针和反斜面针进行 FNB,诊断率、样本细胞度和样本血性相似。我们的结果不能推广到相同设计的更大口径针上。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Endoscopic Ultrasound
Endoscopic Ultrasound GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY-
CiteScore
6.20
自引率
11.10%
发文量
144
期刊介绍: Endoscopic Ultrasound, a publication of Euro-EUS Scientific Committee, Asia-Pacific EUS Task Force and Latin American Chapter of EUS, is a peer-reviewed online journal with Quarterly print on demand compilation of issues published. The journal’s full text is available online at http://www.eusjournal.com. The journal allows free access (Open Access) to its contents and permits authors to self-archive final accepted version of the articles on any OAI-compliant institutional / subject-based repository. The journal does not charge for submission, processing or publication of manuscripts and even for color reproduction of photographs.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信