Min Jae Yang1, Jae Chul Hwang2, Byung Moo Yoo1, Jin Hong Kim1, Dakeun Lee3, Hyunee Lim3, Young Bae Kim3. 1. Department of Gastroenterology, Ajou University School of Medicine, San-5, Woncheon-dong, Yeongtong-gu, Suwon, 16499, Republic of Korea. 2. Department of Gastroenterology, Ajou University School of Medicine, San-5, Woncheon-dong, Yeongtong-gu, Suwon, 16499, Republic of Korea. cath07@ajou.ac.kr. 3. Department of Pathology, Ajou University School of Medicine, Suwon, Republic of Korea.
Abstract
BACKGROUND:Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided tissue acquisition has become the most effective method of obtaining specimens from a solid lesion adjacent to the gastrointestinal tract. No data exist regarding the use of a stylet in the core biopsy needle during EUS-guided tissue acquisition. The aims of this study were to evaluate the feasibility, safety, and diagnostic yield of a 25-gauge core biopsy needle without (S-) a stylet and to compare its performance with that of a 25-gauge core biopsy needle with (S+) a stylet in patients with solid lesions adjacent to the gastrointestinal tract. METHODS: From November 2013 to January 2016, we performed 114 EUS-guided tissue acquisitions for the diagnosis of solid lesions adjacent to the gastrointestinal tract in a randomized controlled trial. Patients were randomly assigned to the S+ group (n = 57) or the S- group (n = 57). EUS-guided tissue acquisition was performed using a 25-gauge core biopsy needle without an on-site cytopathologist. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in technical success (100 vs. 100%, p = 1.000), the mean number of needle passes (7.0 ± 1.6 vs. 6.8 ± 1.5, p = 0.556), needle malfunction (0 vs. 1.8%, p = 1.000), or complications (1.8 vs. 0%, p = 1.000) between the S+ and S- groups. Both groups exhibited comparable outcomes with respect to cytological diagnostic accuracy (93.0 vs. 91.2%, p = 1.000) and histological diagnostic accuracy (86.0 vs. 87.7%, p = 1.000) for malignancy. The procedure time was significantly shorter in the S- group than in the S+ group (32.4 ± 11.7 vs. 39.7 ± 8.6 min, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: EUS-guided tissue acquisition using a 25-gauge core biopsy needle without a stylet did not decrease the diagnostic yield for malignancy and was associated with a shorter procedure time than that associated with a stylet.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided tissue acquisition has become the most effective method of obtaining specimens from a solid lesion adjacent to the gastrointestinal tract. No data exist regarding the use of a stylet in the core biopsy needle during EUS-guided tissue acquisition. The aims of this study were to evaluate the feasibility, safety, and diagnostic yield of a 25-gauge core biopsy needle without (S-) a stylet and to compare its performance with that of a 25-gauge core biopsy needle with (S+) a stylet in patients with solid lesions adjacent to the gastrointestinal tract. METHODS: From November 2013 to January 2016, we performed 114 EUS-guided tissue acquisitions for the diagnosis of solid lesions adjacent to the gastrointestinal tract in a randomized controlled trial. Patients were randomly assigned to the S+ group (n = 57) or the S- group (n = 57). EUS-guided tissue acquisition was performed using a 25-gauge core biopsy needle without an on-site cytopathologist. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in technical success (100 vs. 100%, p = 1.000), the mean number of needle passes (7.0 ± 1.6 vs. 6.8 ± 1.5, p = 0.556), needle malfunction (0 vs. 1.8%, p = 1.000), or complications (1.8 vs. 0%, p = 1.000) between the S+ and S- groups. Both groups exhibited comparable outcomes with respect to cytological diagnostic accuracy (93.0 vs. 91.2%, p = 1.000) and histological diagnostic accuracy (86.0 vs. 87.7%, p = 1.000) for malignancy. The procedure time was significantly shorter in the S- group than in the S+ group (32.4 ± 11.7 vs. 39.7 ± 8.6 min, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: EUS-guided tissue acquisition using a 25-gauge core biopsy needle without a stylet did not decrease the diagnostic yield for malignancy and was associated with a shorter procedure time than that associated with a stylet.
Authors: Julia Kim LeBlanc; Donato Ciaccia; Mohammed T Al-Assi; Kevin McGrath; Tom Imperiale; Liang-Che Tao; Steve Vallery; John DeWitt; Stuart Sherman; Edith Collins Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2004-04 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Jun Kyu Lee; Jong Hak Choi; Kwang Hyuck Lee; Kwang Min Kim; Jae Uk Shin; Jong Kyun Lee; Kyu Taek Lee; Kee-Taek Jang Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2013-02-21 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Sachin Wani; Dayna Early; Julie Kunkel; Ann Leathersich; Christine E Hovis; Thomas G Hollander; Cara Kohlmeier; Cynthia Zelenka; Riad Azar; Steven Edmundowicz; Brian Collins; Jingxia Liu; Matthew Hall; Daniel Mullady Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2012-06-12 Impact factor: 9.427