Prospective comparative study of endoscopic ultrasonography-guided fine-needle biopsy and unroofing biopsy.

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 38-38 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sung Kwan Shin ◽  
Jun Chul Park ◽  
Eun Hye Kim ◽  
Sang Kil Lee ◽  
Yong Chan Lee
Keyword(s):  
Comparative Study ◽  
Endoscopic Ultrasonography ◽  
Needle Biopsy ◽  
Diagnostic Yield ◽  
Fine Needle Biopsy ◽  
Histological Diagnosis ◽  
Fine Needle ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Prospective Comparative Study ◽  
The Mean

38 Background: Adequate tissue acquisition is important in making treatment decisions for patients with upper gastrointestinal subepithelial tumors (SETs). This study aimed to compare the outcomes of endoscopic ultrasonography-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) with those of the unroofing biopsy technique. Methods: This study was a single-center, prospective comparative study conducted at Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine. A total of 39 patients with SETs ≥15 mm were enrolled between January 2016 and August 2017. Results: Of the 39 patients, 28 underwent biopsy with both techniques (4 underwent only unroofing and 7 underwent only EUS-FNB). The mean tumor size was 21.0 mm (median, 19.0 mm; 15.0–45.0 mm). Histological diagnosis was made with EUS-FNB in 64.3% and with unroofing biopsy in 78.6% (p = 0.344), and immunohistochemical diagnosis was made with EUS-FNB in 46.4% and unroofing biopsy in 67.9% (p = 0.180). In the subgroup analysis (28 patients), there was no significant difference in diagnostic yield between the 2 methods. The mean procedural time with EUS-FNB was shorter than that with unroofing biopsy (p < 0.001). The larger SET (≥ 20 mm) (p = 0.035) and satisfaction of procedure (p = 0.019) were positively associated with successful histological diagnosis by EUS-FNB. No complications were reported with both methods. Conclusions: There was no significant difference in the histological diagnostic yield for SETs between the EUS-FNB and unroofing biopsy techniques. Further study is needed to confirm the efficacy of EUS-FNB and unroofing biopsy in a larger study population. Clinical trial information: NCT02646241.

Prospective comparative study of endoscopic ultrasonography-guided fine-needle biopsy and unroofing biopsy

2019 ◽  
Vol 51 (6) ◽  
pp. 831-836 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jihye Park ◽  
Jun Chul Park ◽  
Jeong Hyeon Jo ◽  
Eun Hye Kim ◽  
Sung Kwan Shin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Comparative Study ◽  
Endoscopic Ultrasonography ◽  
Needle Biopsy ◽  
Fine Needle Biopsy ◽  
Fine Needle ◽  
Prospective Comparative Study

scholarly journals An exclusive fine-needle biopsy approach to sampling solid lesions under EUS guidance: a prospective cohort study

2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (5) ◽  
pp. 349-354
Author(s):  
Lindsey M Temnykh ◽  
Mahmoud A Rahal ◽  
Zahra Zia ◽  
Mohammad A Al-Haddad
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Events ◽  
Needle Biopsy ◽  
Diagnostic Yield ◽  
Fine Needle Biopsy ◽  
Needle Aspiration ◽  
Procedure Time ◽  
Fine Needle ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Solid Lesions ◽  
Procedural Outcomes

Abstract Background Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) is increasingly utilized to enhance the cytological yield of sampling solid lesions, but its superiority over existing fine-needle aspiration (FNA) platforms has not been clearly demonstrated. The aim of our study was to compare the diagnostic accuracy and procedural outcomes of FNB using a new Franseen-tip needle to that of a traditional FNA in sampling solid lesions under EUS guidance. Methods Consecutive patients with solid lesions referred for EUS-FNB sampling were included. Procedure-related outcomes were collected prospectively including patient demographics, number of passes performed, diagnostic sample adequacy, adverse events, and recovery time. The Acquire needle was used to sample all lesions in the study group. Consecutive EUS-FNA procedures performed to sample solid lesions using the Expect needle were utilized as controls. Results There were 180 patients undergoing EUS-FNB compared to 183 patients undergoing EUS-FNA procedures for solid-lesion sampling. The procedure time was significantly shorter in patients who underwent FNB compared to FNA (mean: 37.4 vs 44.9 minutes, P &lt; 0.001). Significantly fewer passes were performed in the FNB cohort compared to the FNA group (mean: 2.9 vs 3.8, P &lt; 0.001). The cytologic diagnostic yield was significantly higher in the FNB group compared to the FNA group (98.3% vs 90.2%, P = 0.003). No significant difference in the incidence of adverse events was observed between the FNB and FNA groups (1.1% vs 0.5%, P = 0.564). Conclusions An FNB-exclusive approach to sampling solid lesions under EUS guidance is safe and feasible, and may result in fewer overall passes, shorter procedure time, and improved diagnostic adequacy. FNB may replace FNA as the primary sampling modality of choice in all solid lesions.

scholarly journals Use of suction during endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle biopsy of solid pancreatic lesions with a Franseen-tip needle: a pilot comparative trial

2021 ◽  
Vol 09 (03) ◽  
pp. E401-E408
Author(s):  
Pedro Costa-Moreira ◽  
Filipe Vilas-Boas ◽  
Diana Martins ◽  
Pedro Moutinho-Ribeiro ◽  
Susana Lopes ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Diagnostic Accuracy ◽  
Likelihood Ratio ◽  
Endoscopic Ultrasound ◽  
Needle Biopsy ◽  
Diagnostic Yield ◽  
Fine Needle Biopsy ◽  
Blood Contamination ◽  
Fine Needle ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Background and study aims The utility of suction during endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) fine-needle biopsy (FNB) using Franseen-tip needle remains unclear and has not been evaluated in randomized trials. We designed a randomized crossover trial to compare the diagnostic yield during EUS-FNB using a 22G Franseen-tip needle, with and without standard suction. Patients and methods Consecutive patients undergoing EUS-guided sampling of solid pancreatic lesions were recruited. A minimum of two passes were performed for each case: one with 20-mL syringe suction (S+) and another without (S–). The order of passes was randomized and the pathologist blinded. The endpoints were the diagnostic yield and the impact of blood contamination in the diagnosis. Results Fifty consecutive patients were enrolled. The overall diagnostic accuracy was 84 %. A diagnosis of malignancy was obtained in 70 samples: 36 in the S+group and 34 in the S–group. A statistically significant difference was seen in the diagnostic accuracy (S+: 78 % vs. S–: 72 %, P < 0.01) and blood contamination (S+: 68 %; S–: 44 %, P < 0.01). The sensitivity, specificity, negative likelihood ratio and positive likelihood ratio for S+vs. S–samples were 76.6 % vs. 73.9 %, 100 % vs. 100 % and 0.23 vs. 0.26, NA vs NA, respectively. A negative impact of blood contamination in the overall diagnostic yield wasn’t seen, even in samples where suction was used (OR 0.36, P = 0.15) Conclusions We found a higher diagnostic yield with the use of suction. It was associated with a higher degree of sample blood contamination that did not affect the diagnostic performance.

scholarly journals A meta-analysis of endoscopic ultrasound–fine-needle aspiration compared to endoscopic ultrasound–fine-needle biopsy: diagnostic yield and the value of onsite cytopathological assessment

2017 ◽  
Vol 05 (05) ◽  
pp. E363-E375 ◽  
Author(s):  
Muhammad Khan ◽  
Ian Grimm ◽  
Bilal Ali ◽  
Richard Nollan ◽  
Claudio Tombazzi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Endoscopic Ultrasound ◽  
Needle Biopsy ◽  
Diagnostic Yield ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Fine Needle Biopsy ◽  
Needle Aspiration ◽  
Fine Needle ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Meta Regression ◽  
Optimal Quality

Abstract Background The diagnostic yield of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) guided fine-needle aspiration (FNA) is variable, and partly dependent upon rapid onsite evaluation (ROSE) by a cytopathologist. Second generation fine-needle biopsy (FNB) needles are being increasingly used to obtain core histological tissue samples. Aims Studies comparing the diagnostic yield of EUS guided FNA versus FNB have reached conflicting conclusions. We therefore conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the diagnostic yield of FNA with FNB, and specifically evaluating the diagnostic value of ROSE while comparing the two types of needles. Methods We searched several databases from inception to 10 April 2016 to identify studies comparing diagnostic yield of second generation FNB needles with standard FNA needles. Risk ratios (RR) were calculated for categorical outcomes of interest (diagnostic adequacy, diagnostic accuracy, and optimal quality histological cores obtained). Standard mean difference (SMD) was calculated for continuous variables (number of passes required for diagnosis). These were pooled using random effects model of meta-analysis to account for heterogeneity. Meta-regression was conducted to evaluate the effect of ROSE on various outcomes of interest. Results Fifteen studies with a total of 1024 patients were included in the analysis. We found no significant difference in diagnostic adequacy [RR 0.98 (0.91, 1.06), (I 2 = 51 %)]. Although not statistically significant (P = 0.06), by meta-regression, in the absence of ROSE, FNB showed a relatively better diagnostic adequacy. For solid pancreatic lesions only, there was no difference in diagnostic adequacy [RR 0.96 (0.86, 1.09), (I 2 = 66 %)]. By meta-regression, in the absence of ROSE, FNB was associated with better diagnostic adequacy (P = 0.02). There was no difference in diagnostic accuracy [RR 0.99 (0.95, 1.03), (I 2 = 27 %)] or optimal quality core histological sample procurement [RR 0.97 (0.89, 1.05), (I 2 = 9.6 %)]. However, FNB established diagnosis with fewer passes [SMD 0.93 (0.45, 1.42), (I 2 = 84 %)]. The absence of ROSE was associated with a higher SMD, i. e., in the presence of an onsite pathologist, FNA required relatively fewer passes to establish the diagnosis than in the absence of an onsite pathologist. Conclusions There is no significant difference in the diagnostic yield between FNA and FNB, when FNA is accompanied by ROSE. However, in the absence of ROSE, FNB is associated with a relatively better diagnostic adequacy in solid pancreatic lesions. Also, FNB requires fewer passes to establish the diagnosis.

A Comparative Study of Endoscopic Coblation Adenoidectomy and Regular Curettage Adenoidectomy in a Tertiary Care Hospital in Kerala

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (41) ◽  
pp. 3559-3566
Author(s):  
Abdul Salam R. T. ◽  
Shahul Hameed A. ◽  
Meera Rajan
Keyword(s):  
Blood Loss ◽  
Comparative Study ◽  
Tertiary Care ◽  
Operation Time ◽  
Care Hospital ◽  
Adenoid Tissue ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Tube Function ◽  
Prospective Comparative Study ◽  
The Mean

BACKGROUND An ideal surgery to remove hypertrophied adenoid mass should be safe, with less bleeding and operation time along with post-operative improvement in the eustachian tubal ventilation and normal respiration. It should also have low morbidity and mortality. Among the various methods described for its removal, the two commonly used methods are conventional cold curettage method and coblation technique. The purpose of this study was to collate the safety and efficacy of endoscopic coblation adenoidectomy with the conventional curettage adenoidectomy. METHODS A prospective comparative study with fifty patients was studied who underwent adenoidectomy. Twenty five patients underwent endoscopy assisted coblation adenoidectomy and twenty five patients underwent regular adenoidectomy by curettage. RESULTS Patients who underwent coblation adenoidectomy showed better results during follow up in terms of completeness of removal. 80 % of children undergoing regular adenoidectomy by curettage method showed remnant adenoid tissue in the nasopharynx at the end of the procedure. But it was 6 % among the children undergoing endoscopic assisted coblation adenoidectomy. The mean duration of operation was higher for endoscopic assisted coblation adenoidectomy which was significant statistically. The mean blood loss was 30.36 ml in regular curettage adenoidectomy; 10.6 ml with endoscopic coblation adenoidectomy. The grading of pain was significantly lower in endoscopic assisted coblation adenoidectomy. There was no significant difference between two groups in terms of eustachian tube function after surgery. CONCLUSIONS Coblation adenoidectomy has significant advantages over conventional adenoidectomy in terms of completeness of removal, reduced blood loss, and lower post-operative pain grade. KEYWORDS Coblation, Adenoidectomy, Curettage, Haemorrhage and Complications

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document