Literature DB >> 19231491

Experimental endoscopy: objective evaluation of EUS needles.

Takao Itoi1, Fumihide Itokawa, Toshio Kurihara, Atsushi Sofuni, Takayoshi Tsuchiya, Kentaro Ishii, Shujiro Tsuji, Nobuhito Ikeuchi, Takashi Kawai, Fuminori Moriyasu.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: In the clinical setting, endosonographers acknowledge that not only the size and characteristics of EUS-guided FNA needles but also several conditions affect the acquisition of adequate samples.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the characteristics of the 19-gauge Tru-cut, 19-gauge aspiration, 22-gauge aspiration, and 25-gauge aspiration EUS needles under several conditions by using a bench simulator designed to provide standardized, reproducible, comparative performance data in combination with evaluation by 3 endosonographers of needle-insertion resistance.
DESIGN: Laboratory simulations that compare resistance to needle advancement under several conditions (straight and angulated endoscope position, endoscopic tip angulation, and the use of the elevator) by using both diagnostic and therapeutic EUS scopes. These varied conditions cause a range of resistance to the advancement of the needle through the endoscope.
SETTING: Research laboratory. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENT: The mean (SD) for advancement resistance (N) to each EUS needle. Needle resistance was evaluated individually by endosonographers and divided into 5 levels (0 [no resistance] to 5 [impossible for needle to be advanced]).
RESULTS: Endosonographers concluded that the needle-advancement resistance was moderate with a pressure resistance to the needle of 5 N or more and high at 8 N or more, and that it was impossible to advance the needle when the resistance to it was 11 N or more. Instrumentational evaluation showed that, with the 25-gauge and 22-gauge needles, needle resistance was approximately less than 2 N and 3 N, respectively. In the straight endoscope position, the 19-gauge aspiration or Tru-cut needle resistance when using upward angulation of the endoscope or the elevator was more than 8 N and 10 N, respectively. In the angulated endoscope position, the resistance to the 19-gauge aspiration or Tru-cut needle when using upward angulation was more than 10 N and 20 N, respectively. LIMITATIONS: All data were collected ex vivo, and clinical validity remains to be determined.
CONCLUSIONS: The 22-gauge or 25-gauge EUS-guided FNA needles are suitable for insertion into the target regions if tight angulation is necessary.

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19231491     DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2008.07.017

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc        ISSN: 0016-5107            Impact factor:   9.427


  15 in total

Review 1.  Endoscopic ultrasound guided fine needle aspiration and useful ancillary methods.

Authors:  Mario Tadic; Tajana Stoos-Veic; Rajko Kusec
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2014-10-21       Impact factor: 5.742

Review 2.  Endoscopic ultrasound guided fine needle tissue acquisition: where we stand in 2013?

Authors:  Zeid Karadsheh; Mohammad Al-Haddad
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2014-03-07       Impact factor: 5.742

3.  Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle Biopsy Using 22-Gauge Franseen Needle for the Histological Diagnosis of Solid Lesions: A Multicenter Prospective Pilot Study.

Authors:  Naoki Mita; Takuji Iwashita; Shinya Uemura; Yuhei Iwasa; Katsuhisa Toda; Tsuyoshi Mukai; Tatsuhiko Miyazaki; Ichiro Yasuda; Masahito Shimizu
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2019-09-18       Impact factor: 3.199

Review 4.  Endoscopic ultrasonography guided-fine needle aspiration for the diagnosis of solid pancreaticobiliary lesions: Clinical aspects to improve the diagnosis.

Authors:  Hiroyuki Matsubayashi; Toru Matsui; Yohei Yabuuchi; Kenichiro Imai; Masaki Tanaka; Naomi Kakushima; Keiko Sasaki; Hiroyuki Ono
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2016-01-14       Impact factor: 5.742

5.  Evaluation of 19-gauge endoscopic ultrasonography aspiration needles using various echoendoscopes.

Authors:  Takao Itoi; Fumihide Itokawa; Atsushi Sofuni; Toshio Kurihara; Takayoshi Tsuchiya; Kentaro Ishii; Shujiro Tsuji; Nobuhito Ikeuchi; Hiroshi Kawakami; Fuminori Moriyasu; Ichiro Yasuda
Journal:  Endosc Int Open       Date:  2013-12

6.  New ex-vivo porcine model for endoscopic ultrasound-guided training in transmural puncture and drainage of pancreatic cysts and fluid collections (with videos).

Authors:  Todd H Baron; Thomas M DeSimio
Journal:  Endosc Ultrasound       Date:  2015 Jan-Mar       Impact factor: 5.628

Review 7.  Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine-Needle Aspiration of Pancreatic Lesions: A Systematic Review of Technical and Procedural Variables.

Authors:  Bhairvi S Jani; Fadi Rzouq; Shreyas Saligram; Diego Lim; Amit Rastogi; John Bonino; Mojtaba Olyaee
Journal:  N Am J Med Sci       Date:  2016-01

Review 8.  Endoscopic ultrasound-guided techniques for diagnosing pancreatic mass lesions: Can we do better?

Authors:  Andrew C Storm; Linda S Lee
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2016-10-21       Impact factor: 5.742

9.  Slow-Pull Using a Fanning Technique Is More Useful Than the Standard Suction Technique in EUS-Guided Fine Needle Aspiration in Pancreatic Masses.

Authors:  Jae Min Lee; Hong Sik Lee; Jong Jin Hyun; Jung Min Lee; In Kyung Yoo; Seung Han Kim; Hyuk Soon Choi; Eun Sun Kim; Bora Keum; Yeon Seok Seo; Yoon Tae Jeen; Hoon Jai Chun; Soon Ho Um; Chang Duck Kim
Journal:  Gut Liver       Date:  2018-05-15       Impact factor: 4.519

10.  EUS-FNA using 22G nitinol or ProCore needles without on-site cytopathology.

Authors:  Charing Ching Ning Chong; Anthony Yuen Bun Teoh; Raymond Shing Yan Tang; Anthony Wing Hung Chan; Enders Kwok Wai Ng; Paul Bo San Lai
Journal:  Endosc Ultrasound       Date:  2018 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 5.628

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.