EUS针肝活检诊断率的比较:离体研究。

Diagnostic and Therapeutic Endoscopy Pub Date : 2017-01-01 Epub Date: 2017-09-13 DOI:10.1155/2017/1497831
Woo Jung Lee, Lance T Uradomo, Yang Zhang, William Twaddell, Peter Darwin
{"title":"EUS针肝活检诊断率的比较:离体研究。","authors":"Woo Jung Lee,&nbsp;Lance T Uradomo,&nbsp;Yang Zhang,&nbsp;William Twaddell,&nbsp;Peter Darwin","doi":"10.1155/2017/1497831","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and aims: </strong>EUS-guided liver biopsy is an emerging method of liver tissue acquisition which is safe and had been shown to produce excellent histological yield. There is limited data comparing the diagnostic yield of different FNA needles. We aimed to compare the diagnostic performance of four commercially available 19-gauge FNA needles.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Four FNA needles and one percutaneous needle were used to perform liver biopsies on two human cadaveric livers: Cook Echotip Procore™, Olympus EZ Shot 2™, Boston Scientific Expect Slimline™, Covidien SharkCore™, and an 18-gauge percutaneous needle (TruCore™, Argon Medical Devices). Each needle obtained biopsies by three, six, and nine complete back-and-forth motions of the needle (\"throw\") with a fanning technique. The combined lengths of specimen fragments and the total number of complete portal tracts (CPT) were measured by a blinded pathologist. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Bonferroni correction were used for statistical analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 52 liver biopsies were performed. The Covidien SharkCore needle had significantly greater number of CPT compared to other FNA needles. The number of \"throws\" did not impact the number of CPT significantly. There was no statistically significant difference in mean total specimen length between each FNA needle type.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The Covidien SharkCore needle produced superior histological specimen by capturing more CPT, possibly due to its unique needle design.</p>","PeriodicalId":11288,"journal":{"name":"Diagnostic and Therapeutic Endoscopy","volume":"2017 ","pages":"1497831"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1155/2017/1497831","citationCount":"10","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of the Diagnostic Yield of EUS Needles for Liver Biopsy: Ex Vivo Study.\",\"authors\":\"Woo Jung Lee,&nbsp;Lance T Uradomo,&nbsp;Yang Zhang,&nbsp;William Twaddell,&nbsp;Peter Darwin\",\"doi\":\"10.1155/2017/1497831\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background and aims: </strong>EUS-guided liver biopsy is an emerging method of liver tissue acquisition which is safe and had been shown to produce excellent histological yield. There is limited data comparing the diagnostic yield of different FNA needles. We aimed to compare the diagnostic performance of four commercially available 19-gauge FNA needles.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Four FNA needles and one percutaneous needle were used to perform liver biopsies on two human cadaveric livers: Cook Echotip Procore™, Olympus EZ Shot 2™, Boston Scientific Expect Slimline™, Covidien SharkCore™, and an 18-gauge percutaneous needle (TruCore™, Argon Medical Devices). Each needle obtained biopsies by three, six, and nine complete back-and-forth motions of the needle (\\\"throw\\\") with a fanning technique. The combined lengths of specimen fragments and the total number of complete portal tracts (CPT) were measured by a blinded pathologist. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Bonferroni correction were used for statistical analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 52 liver biopsies were performed. The Covidien SharkCore needle had significantly greater number of CPT compared to other FNA needles. The number of \\\"throws\\\" did not impact the number of CPT significantly. There was no statistically significant difference in mean total specimen length between each FNA needle type.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The Covidien SharkCore needle produced superior histological specimen by capturing more CPT, possibly due to its unique needle design.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":11288,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Diagnostic and Therapeutic Endoscopy\",\"volume\":\"2017 \",\"pages\":\"1497831\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2017-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1155/2017/1497831\",\"citationCount\":\"10\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Diagnostic and Therapeutic Endoscopy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/1497831\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2017/9/13 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Diagnostic and Therapeutic Endoscopy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/1497831","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2017/9/13 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 10

摘要

背景和目的:eus引导下的肝活检是一种新兴的肝组织获取方法,安全且具有良好的组织学产率。比较不同FNA针的诊断率的数据有限。我们的目的是比较四种市售的19号FNA针的诊断性能。方法:使用4根FNA针和1根经皮针对2个人的尸体肝脏进行肝活检:Cook Echotip Procore™、Olympus EZ Shot 2™、Boston Scientific Expect Slimline™、Covidien SharkCore™和18号经皮针(TruCore™,Argon Medical Devices)。每根针通过三次、六次和九次完整的针的前后运动(“投掷”)获得活组织检查。标本碎片的总长度和完整门静脉束(CPT)的总数由盲法病理学家测量。统计学分析采用单因素方差分析(ANOVA)和Bonferroni校正。结果:共行肝活检52例。Covidien SharkCore针与其他FNA针相比,CPT数量显著增加。“抛出”的次数对CPT的次数没有显著影响。不同FNA针型的平均总标本长度差异无统计学意义。结论:Covidien SharkCore针可能由于其独特的针型设计,捕获了更多的CPT,获得了更好的组织学标本。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Comparison of the Diagnostic Yield of EUS Needles for Liver Biopsy: Ex Vivo Study.

Comparison of the Diagnostic Yield of EUS Needles for Liver Biopsy: Ex Vivo Study.

Comparison of the Diagnostic Yield of EUS Needles for Liver Biopsy: Ex Vivo Study.

Comparison of the Diagnostic Yield of EUS Needles for Liver Biopsy: Ex Vivo Study.

Background and aims: EUS-guided liver biopsy is an emerging method of liver tissue acquisition which is safe and had been shown to produce excellent histological yield. There is limited data comparing the diagnostic yield of different FNA needles. We aimed to compare the diagnostic performance of four commercially available 19-gauge FNA needles.

Methods: Four FNA needles and one percutaneous needle were used to perform liver biopsies on two human cadaveric livers: Cook Echotip Procore™, Olympus EZ Shot 2™, Boston Scientific Expect Slimline™, Covidien SharkCore™, and an 18-gauge percutaneous needle (TruCore™, Argon Medical Devices). Each needle obtained biopsies by three, six, and nine complete back-and-forth motions of the needle ("throw") with a fanning technique. The combined lengths of specimen fragments and the total number of complete portal tracts (CPT) were measured by a blinded pathologist. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Bonferroni correction were used for statistical analysis.

Results: A total of 52 liver biopsies were performed. The Covidien SharkCore needle had significantly greater number of CPT compared to other FNA needles. The number of "throws" did not impact the number of CPT significantly. There was no statistically significant difference in mean total specimen length between each FNA needle type.

Conclusion: The Covidien SharkCore needle produced superior histological specimen by capturing more CPT, possibly due to its unique needle design.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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