Adam Haig, Andrew St John, Kasturi Vaska, Xuan Banh, Alexander Huelsen
{"title":"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","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":"{\"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}","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}
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
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.
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.