Shou-Jiang Tang1, Andreas S Vilmann2, Adrian Saftoiu3, Wanmei Wang4, Costin Teodor Streba5, Peter P Fink6, Michael Griswold4, Ruonan Wu1, Christoph F Dietrich7, Christian Jenssen8, Michael Hocke9, Marcus Kantowski10, Jürgen Pohl11, Paul Fockens12, Jouke T Annema12, Erik H F M van der Heijden13, Roald Flesland Havre14, Khanh Do-Cong Pham14, Rastislav Kunda15, Pierre H Deprez16, Jinga Mariana17, Enrique Vazquez-Sequeiros18, Alberto Larghi19, Elisabetta Buscarini20, Pietro Fusaroli21, Maor Lahav22, Rajesh Puri23, Pramod Kumar Garg24, Malay Sharma25, Fauze Maluf-Filho26, Anand Sahai27, William R Brugge28, Linda S Lee29, Harry R Aslanian30, Andrew Y Wang31, Vanessa M Shami31, Arnold Markowitz32, Ali A Siddiqui33, Girish Mishra34, James M Scheiman35, Gerard Isenberg36, Uzma D Siddiqui37, Raj J Shah38, James Buxbaum39, Rabindra R Watson40, Field F Willingham41, Manoop S Bhutani42, Michael J Levy43, Cynthia Harris44, Michael B Wallace45, Christian Pállson Nolsøe2, Torben Lorentzen2, Niels Bang15, Sten Mellerup Sørensen15, Odd Helge Gilja46, Mirko D'Onofrio47, Fabio Piscaglia21, Norbert Gritzmann48, Maija Radzina49, Zeno Adrian Sparchez50, Paul S Sidhu51, Simon Freeman52, Timothy C McCowan53, Cyrillo Rodrigues de Araujo53, Akash Patel53, Mohammad Adel Ali53, Garth Campbell53, Edward Chen54, Peter Vilmann2. 1. Division of Digestive Diseases, Department of Medicine, University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson, Mississippi, USA. 2. GastroUnit, Copenhagen University Hospital Herlev, Copenhagen, Denmark. 3. GastroUnit, Copenhagen University Hospital Herlev, Copenhagen, Denmark; Department of Gastroenterology, Research Center of Gastroenterology and Hepatology Craiova, Craiova, Romania. 4. Center of Biostatistics & Bioinformatics, University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson, Mississippi, USA. 5. Department of Gastroenterology, Research Center of Gastroenterology and Hepatology Craiova, Craiova, Romania. 6. Medi-Globe GmbH, Rosenheim, Germany. 7. Caritas Krankenhaus Bad Mergentheim, Germany. 8. Krankenhaus Märkisch Oderland GmbH, Germany. 9. Helios Hospital Meiningen, Meiningen, Germany. 10. University Hospital of Hamburg-Eppendorf, Germany. 11. Vivantes Klinikum im Friedrichshain, Berlin, Germany. 12. University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands. 13. Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, Netherlands. 14. Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway. 15. Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark. 16. Université Catholique de Louvain, Brussels, Belgium. 17. University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Bucharest, Romania. 18. University Hospital Ramon y Cajal, Madrid, Spain. 19. Catholic University, Rome, Italy. 20. Maggiore Hospital, Crema, Italy. 21. Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences, University of Bologna/Hospital of Imola, Italy. 22. Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel. 23. Institute of Digestive and Hepatobiliary Sciences, Gurgaon, India. 24. All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India. 25. Jaswant Rai Speciality Hospital, Uttar Pradersh, India. 26. Cancer Institute of Sao Paulo University, Sao Paulo, Brazil. 27. Centre Hospitalier de l'Universite de Montreal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. 28. Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 29. Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 30. Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, USA. 31. University of Virginia Health System, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Charlottesville, Virginia, USA. 32. Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA. 33. Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA. 34. Wake Forest University Hospital, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, USA. 35. University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA. 36. Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, USA. 37. University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, USA. 38. University of Colorado Hospital, Denver, Colorado, USA. 39. University of Southern California Keck School of Medicine, California, USA. 40. University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California, USA. 41. Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia, USA. 42. University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA. 43. Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA. 44. Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, Florida, USA. 45. Mayo Clinic Florida, Jacksonville, Florida, USA. 46. National Centre for Ultrasound in Gastroenterology, Haukeland University Hospital, and Department of Clinical Medicine, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway. 47. GB Rossi University Hospital, Verona, Italy. 48. Center for Radiology Esslinger, Vienna, Austria. 49. Paula Stradina Clinical University Hospital, Riga, Latvia. 50. 3rd Medical Department, University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Institute for Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Cluj-Napoca, Romania. 51. King's College Hospital, London, UK. 52. Derriford Hospital, Plymouth, UK. 53. University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson, Mississippi, USA. 54. University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: EUS-guided FNA or biopsy sampling is widely practiced. Optimal sonographic visualization of the needle is critical for image-guided interventions. Of the several commercially available needles, bench-top testing and direct comparison of these needles have not been done to reveal their inherent echogenicity. The aims are to provide bench-top data that can be used to guide clinical applications and to promote future device research and development. METHODS: Descriptive bench-top testing and comparison of 8 commonly used EUS-FNA needles (all size 22 gauge): SonoTip Pro Control (Medi-Globe); Expect Slimline (Boston Scientific); EchoTip, EchoTip Ultra, EchoTip ProCore High Definition (Cook Medical); ClearView (Conmed); EZ Shot 2 (Olympus); and BNX (Beacon Endoscopic), and 2 new prototype needles, SonoCoat (Medi-Globe), coated by echogenic polymers made by Encapson. Blinded evaluation of standardized and unedited videos by 43 EUS endoscopists and 17 radiologists specialized in GI US examination who were unfamiliar with EUS needle devices. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in the ratings and rankings of these needles between endosonographers and radiologists. Overall, 1 prototype needle was rated as the best, ranking 10% to 40% higher than all other needles (P < .01). Among the commercially available needles, the EchoTip Ultra needle and the ClearView needle were top choices. The EZ Shot 2 needle was ranked statistically lower than other needles (30%-75% worse, P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: All FNA needles have their inherent and different echogenicities, and these differences are similarly recognized by EUS endoscopists and radiologists. Needles with polymeric coating from the entire shaft to the needle tip may offer better echogenicity.
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: EUS-guided FNA or biopsy sampling is widely practiced. Optimal sonographic visualization of the needle is critical for image-guided interventions. Of the several commercially available needles, bench-top testing and direct comparison of these needles have not been done to reveal their inherent echogenicity. The aims are to provide bench-top data that can be used to guide clinical applications and to promote future device research and development. METHODS: Descriptive bench-top testing and comparison of 8 commonly used EUS-FNA needles (all size 22 gauge): SonoTip Pro Control (Medi-Globe); Expect Slimline (Boston Scientific); EchoTip, EchoTip Ultra, EchoTip ProCore High Definition (Cook Medical); ClearView (Conmed); EZ Shot 2 (Olympus); and BNX (Beacon Endoscopic), and 2 new prototype needles, SonoCoat (Medi-Globe), coated by echogenic polymers made by Encapson. Blinded evaluation of standardized and unedited videos by 43 EUS endoscopists and 17 radiologists specialized in GI US examination who were unfamiliar with EUS needle devices. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in the ratings and rankings of these needles between endosonographers and radiologists. Overall, 1 prototype needle was rated as the best, ranking 10% to 40% higher than all other needles (P < .01). Among the commercially available needles, the EchoTip Ultra needle and the ClearView needle were top choices. The EZ Shot 2 needle was ranked statistically lower than other needles (30%-75% worse, P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: All FNA needles have their inherent and different echogenicities, and these differences are similarly recognized by EUS endoscopists and radiologists. Needles with polymeric coating from the entire shaft to the needle tip may offer better echogenicity.
Authors: W C Culp; T C McCowan; T C Goertzen; T G Habbe; M M Hummel; R F LeVeen; J C Anderson Journal: J Vasc Interv Radiol Date: 2000-03 Impact factor: 3.464
Authors: Vivek Kaul; Douglas G Adler; Jason D Conway; Francis A Farraye; Sergey V Kantsevoy; Sripathi R Kethu; Richard S Kwon; Petar Mamula; Marcos C Pedrosa; Sarah A Rodriguez; William M Tierney Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2010-04-09 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Douglas G Adler; Jason D Conway; Joseph M B Coffie; James A Disario; Daniel S Mishkin; Raj J Shah; Lehel Somogyi; William M Tierney; Louis Michel Wong Kee Song; Bret T Petersen Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2007-09-24 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Thomas Wiesmann; Andreas Bornträger; Martin Zoremba; Martin Neff; Hinnerk Wulf; Thorsten Steinfeldt Journal: Reg Anesth Pain Med Date: 2013 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 6.288
Authors: Benoît Mesurolle; Tarek Helou; Mona El-Khoury; Michael Edwardes; Elizabeth J Sutton; Ellen Kao Journal: J Ultrasound Med Date: 2007-08 Impact factor: 2.153
Authors: Irina Mihaela Cazacu; Adriana Alexandra Luzuriaga Chavez; Adrian Saftoiu; Peter Vilmann; Manoop S Bhutani Journal: Endosc Ultrasound Date: 2018 May-Jun Impact factor: 5.628