scholarly journals Current Status of Needles in the Optimization of Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Procedures

Diagnostics ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (7) ◽  
pp. 463
Author(s):  
Akashi Fujita ◽  
Shomei Ryozawa ◽  
Yuki Tanisaka ◽  
Tomoya Ogawa ◽  
Masahiro Suzuki ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Endoscopic Ultrasound ◽  
Fine Needle Biopsy ◽  
Needle Aspiration ◽  
Vital Role ◽  
Current Status ◽  
Ultrasound Guided ◽  
Genetic Sequencing ◽  
Fine Needle ◽  
Interventional Eus ◽  
Tissue Acquisition

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) is among the most important tools for the evaluation of gastrointestinal tumors and affected areas around the gastrointestinal tract. It enables the acquisition of material from abnormal lesions via the gastrointestinal wall for tissue confirmation via endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA). EUS-FNA has played a vital role in oncological care and has become the standard method for tissue sampling. The choice of needle type is an important factor determining tissue acquisition and has been evaluated by many researchers. New needles are introduced into the market almost every year, and opinions vary regarding proper needle selection. While there are diverse opinions but no definitive recommendations about the use of one particular device, fine-needle biopsy needles may provide detailed information on a tissue’s architecture based on greater sample yields. This permits additional analyses, including genetic sequencing and phenotyping, thereby enabling the provision of more personalized treatment plans. Furthermore, other EUS-guided procedures have been developed, including interventional EUS and through-the-needle devices. Given the continued attempts to improve the diagnostic ability and therapeutic techniques, we review in detail the available types of puncture needles to provide guidance on the selection of the appropriate needle types.

scholarly journals Diagnostic yield of endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition for small solid pancreatic lesions

2020 ◽  
Vol 08 (10) ◽  
pp. E1359-E1364
Author(s):  
Takafumi Mie ◽  
Takashi Sasaki ◽  
Ryo Kanata ◽  
Takaaki Furukawa ◽  
Tsuyoshi Takeda ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Endoscopic Ultrasound ◽  
Diagnostic Yield ◽  
Fine Needle Biopsy ◽  
Needle Aspiration ◽  
Pancreatic Abscess ◽  
Ultrasound Guided ◽  
Predictive Values ◽  
Fine Needle ◽  
Tissue Acquisition ◽  
Sensitivity Specificity

Abstract Background and study aims Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided tissue acquisition is sometimes required to diagnose small solid pancreatic lesions. The aim of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic yield of EUS-guided tissue acquisition for small solid pancreatic lesions and the differences in diagnostic yield among different needles. Patients and method We retrospectively analyzed consecutive patients who had undergone EUS-guided tissue acquisition for solid pancreatic lesions less than 2 cm between November 2012 and June 2019. Three types of needles were evaluated in this study: a 22-gauge fine-needle aspiration (FNA) Lancet needle, a 20-gauge fine-needle biopsy (FNB) Menghini needle with a lateral forward bevel, and a 22-gauge FNB Franseen needle. We evaluated the diagnostic yield and safety of the procedure using these needles. Results We analyzed 160 patients with 163 lesions. The overall sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were 92.0 %, 100 %, and 92.6 %, respectively. In the histological plus cytological diagnosis, accuracies of the Lancet, Menghini, and Franseen needles were 92.7 %, 97.0 %, and 85.7 %, respectively (P = 0.10). In the histological diagnosis alone, the negative predictive values (NPVs) of the Lancet, Menghini, and Franseen needles were 13.3 %, 53.3 %, and 27.3 %, respectively (P = 0.08). Adverse events occurred in four cases (2.5 %): one postprocedural bleeding, two cases of pancreatitis, and one pancreatic abscess. Conclusions EUS-guided tissue acquisition for small solid pancreatic lesions has a high diagnostic yield and safety. This study suggested a difference in the diagnostic yield of each needle for small solid pancreatic lesions.

In memoriam: Fine‐needle aspiration, birth: Fine‐needle biopsy: The changing trend in endoscopic ultrasound‐guided tissue acquisition

2018 ◽  
Vol 31 (2) ◽  
pp. 197-202 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ji Young Bang ◽  
Sachin Kirtane ◽  
Konrad Krall ◽  
Udayakumar Navaneethan ◽  
Muhammad Hasan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Endoscopic Ultrasound ◽  
Fine Needle Aspiration ◽  
Needle Biopsy ◽  
Fine Needle Biopsy ◽  
Needle Aspiration ◽  
Ultrasound Guided ◽  
Fine Needle ◽  
Tissue Acquisition ◽  
Changing Trend ◽  
In Memoriam

scholarly journals A Comparison of Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine-Needle Aspiration and Fine-Needle Biopsy in the Diagnosis of Solid Pancreatic Lesions

2018 ◽  
Vol 2018 ◽  
pp. 1-6 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lachlan R. Ayres ◽  
Elizabeth K. Kmiotek ◽  
Eric Lam ◽  
Jennifer J. Telford
Keyword(s):  
Diagnostic Accuracy ◽  
Endoscopic Ultrasound ◽  
Fine Needle Aspiration ◽  
Needle Biopsy ◽  
Diagnostic Performance ◽  
Fine Needle Biopsy ◽  
Needle Aspiration ◽  
True Positive ◽  
Ultrasound Guided ◽  
Fine Needle

Background and Aims. Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) guided fine-needle aspiration (FNA) is the method of choice for sampling pancreatic lesions. This study compares the diagnostic accuracy and safety of FNB using a novel core needle to FNA in solid pancreatic lesions. Methods. A retrospective review of patients in whom EUS FNA or FNB was performed for solid pancreatic lesions was conducted. Diagnostic performance was calculated based upon a dual classification system: classification 1, only malignant pathology considered a true positive, versus classification 2, atypical, suspicious, and malignant pathology considered a true positive. Results. 43 patients underwent FNB compared with 51 FNA. Using classification 1, sensitivity was 74.0% versus 80.0%, specificity 100% versus 100%, and diagnostic accuracy 77.0% versus 80.0% for FNB versus FNA, respectively (all p>0.05). Using classification 2, sensitivity was 97% versus 94.0%, specificity 100% versus 100%, and diagnostic accuracy 98.0% versus 94.0% for FNB versus FNA, respectively (all p>0.05). FNB required significantly fewer needle passes (median = 2) compared to FNA (median = 3; p<0.001). Adverse events occurred in two (4.5%) FNB patients compared with none in the FNA group (p>0.05). Conclusion. FNA and FNB have comparable sensitivity and diagnostic accuracy. FNB required fewer passes.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document