BACKGROUND: : Although endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA) using a 22-gauge needle has emerged as an accurate, minimally invasive, and safe technique for accessing undiagnosed mediastinal adenopathy, particularly in patients with lung cancer, the small sample size obtained by a conventional needle may limit the accuracy of the result. OBJECTIVES: : We evaluated the safety and efficacy of obtaining specimens using 21-gauge needles, comparing diagnostic yield with conventional 22-gauge needles. METHODS: : Participants consisted of 56 consecutive patients with mediastinal lesions referred to our institution for diagnostic EBUS-TBNA. The 21-gauge needle group (21 G) included 24 patients with 6 nonmalignancies and the 22-gauge needle group (22 G) included 32 patients with 9 nonmalignancies. Final diagnosis was based on cytology, histology, surgical results, appropriate clinical pictures on examination, and/or clinical follow-up. RESULTS: : Comparing 21 G and 22 G, inadequate material rates were 0% versus 3.1% in cytology, and 4.2% versus 18.8% in histology, respectively. Accuracy in cytology, histology, and combined cytology and/or histology were 91.7% versus 65.6% (P=0.02), 95.8% versus 81.3% (P=0.11), and 100% versus 84.4% (P=0.04), respectively. After limiting cases to suspected malignancies, sensitivity in cytology, histology, and combined cytology and/or histology were 88.9% versus 52.2% (P=0.01), 100% versus 82.6% (P=0.09), and 100% versus 87.0% (P=0.17), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: : Increasing sample volume using a 21-gauge needle rather than a 22-gauge needle might improve diagnostic yield in EBUS-TBNA. This study revealed the benefits of using a 21-gauge needle for cytological and histologic diagnostic yields.
BACKGROUND: : Although endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA) using a 22-gauge needle has emerged as an accurate, minimally invasive, and safe technique for accessing undiagnosed mediastinal adenopathy, particularly in patients with lung cancer, the small sample size obtained by a conventional needle may limit the accuracy of the result. OBJECTIVES: : We evaluated the safety and efficacy of obtaining specimens using 21-gauge needles, comparing diagnostic yield with conventional 22-gauge needles. METHODS: : Participants consisted of 56 consecutive patients with mediastinal lesions referred to our institution for diagnostic EBUS-TBNA. The 21-gauge needle group (21 G) included 24 patients with 6 nonmalignancies and the 22-gauge needle group (22 G) included 32 patients with 9 nonmalignancies. Final diagnosis was based on cytology, histology, surgical results, appropriate clinical pictures on examination, and/or clinical follow-up. RESULTS: : Comparing 21 G and 22 G, inadequate material rates were 0% versus 3.1% in cytology, and 4.2% versus 18.8% in histology, respectively. Accuracy in cytology, histology, and combined cytology and/or histology were 91.7% versus 65.6% (P=0.02), 95.8% versus 81.3% (P=0.11), and 100% versus 84.4% (P=0.04), respectively. After limiting cases to suspected malignancies, sensitivity in cytology, histology, and combined cytology and/or histology were 88.9% versus 52.2% (P=0.01), 100% versus 82.6% (P=0.09), and 100% versus 87.0% (P=0.17), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: : Increasing sample volume using a 21-gauge needle rather than a 22-gauge needle might improve diagnostic yield in EBUS-TBNA. This study revealed the benefits of using a 21-gauge needle for cytological and histologic diagnostic yields.
Authors: Xiaonan Zang; Jason D Gibbs; Ronnarit Cheirsilp; Patrick D Byrnes; Jennifer Toth; Rebecca Bascom; William E Higgins Journal: Comput Biol Med Date: 2019-07-26 Impact factor: 4.589
Authors: Javier Flandes; Luis Fernando Giraldo-Cadavid; Maria Teresa Perez-Warnisher; Andres Gimenez; Iker Fernandez-Navamuel; Javier Alfayate; Alba Naya; Pilar Carballosa; Elena Cabezas; Susana Alvarez; Ana Maria Uribe-Hernandez; Luis Seijo Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2022-10-19 Impact factor: 3.006
Authors: Lonny B Yarmus; Jason Akulian; Noah Lechtzin; Faiza Yasin; Biren Kamdar; Armin Ernst; David E Ost; Cynthia Ray; Sarah R Greenhill; Carlos A Jimenez; Joshua Filner; David Feller-Kopman Journal: Chest Date: 2013-04 Impact factor: 9.410
Authors: Won Bae; Hyojin Kim; Yong A Kim; Jinwoo Lee; Chang-Hoon Lee; Sang-Min Lee; Jae-Joon Yim; Chul-Gyu Yoo; Young Whan Kim; Sung Koo Han; Young Sik Park Journal: Thorac Cancer Date: 2014-03-03 Impact factor: 3.500
Authors: Nikhil Jagan; Carolina A Landeen; Douglas R Moore; Adam D Highley; Ryan W Walters; Zachary S DePew Journal: J Thorac Dis Date: 2019-08 Impact factor: 2.895
Authors: Filiz Oezkan; Stephan Eisenmann; Kaid Darwiche; Asmae Gassa; David P Carbone; Robert E Merritt; Peter J Kneuertz Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2021-11-30 Impact factor: 4.241