BACKGROUND: A large variety of endoscopic biopsy forceps are commercially available. However, little is known regarding the influence of forceps characteristics such as disposability, size, shape, and presence of a needle on the adequacy of the specimens for histologic diagnosis. Our aim was to analyze in a prospective, randomized, pathologist-blinded study the performance of different biopsy forceps. METHODS: Twelve biopsy forceps were tested, 6 each at upper endoscopy and colonoscopy. Two biopsy specimens were obtained with each forceps, for a total of 12 specimens per patient. The tissue samples were examined for the following parameters: weight (mg), size (mm3), depth, crush artifact, sheering effect, and adequacy of the specimens for histologic information (0 = inadequate, 1 = suboptimal, and 2 = adequate). RESULTS:Fifty-five patients undergoing routine upper or lower gastrointestinal endoscopy were included in the study, and a total of 624 tissue samples were available for analysis. Overall, disposable forceps provided specimens of greater size and depth. At upper endoscopy, alligator-shaped forceps improved the depth of the sample as did the absence of a needle within the cup. These factors, however, had no impact on the specimens obtained at colonoscopy. When the adequacy of the specimens was assessed for histologic diagnosis, no significant difference was noted between any of the individual forceps, although collectively oval-shaped forceps were superior to alligator-shaped forceps at colonoscopy. CONCLUSIONS: The biopsy forceps currently available in the market are equally efficient in providing histologic diagnosis. The primary consideration when selecting an endoscopic biopsy forceps, therefore, should be the cost and ease of use and not any perceived advantage in performance.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: A large variety of endoscopic biopsy forceps are commercially available. However, little is known regarding the influence of forceps characteristics such as disposability, size, shape, and presence of a needle on the adequacy of the specimens for histologic diagnosis. Our aim was to analyze in a prospective, randomized, pathologist-blinded study the performance of different biopsy forceps. METHODS: Twelve biopsy forceps were tested, 6 each at upper endoscopy and colonoscopy. Two biopsy specimens were obtained with each forceps, for a total of 12 specimens per patient. The tissue samples were examined for the following parameters: weight (mg), size (mm3), depth, crush artifact, sheering effect, and adequacy of the specimens for histologic information (0 = inadequate, 1 = suboptimal, and 2 = adequate). RESULTS: Fifty-five patients undergoing routine upper or lower gastrointestinal endoscopy were included in the study, and a total of 624 tissue samples were available for analysis. Overall, disposable forceps provided specimens of greater size and depth. At upper endoscopy, alligator-shaped forceps improved the depth of the sample as did the absence of a needle within the cup. These factors, however, had no impact on the specimens obtained at colonoscopy. When the adequacy of the specimens was assessed for histologic diagnosis, no significant difference was noted between any of the individual forceps, although collectively oval-shaped forceps were superior to alligator-shaped forceps at colonoscopy. CONCLUSIONS: The biopsy forceps currently available in the market are equally efficient in providing histologic diagnosis. The primary consideration when selecting an endoscopic biopsy forceps, therefore, should be the cost and ease of use and not any perceived advantage in performance.
Authors: L Reggiani Bonetti; R Manta; M Manno; R Conigliaro; G Missale; G Bassotti; V Villanacci Journal: Tech Coloproctol Date: 2018-12-17 Impact factor: 3.781
Authors: Daniel A Sussman; Amar R Deshpande; Uday Shankar; Jodie A Barkin; Ana Maria Medina; Robert J Poppiti; Luigi X Cubeddu; Jamie S Barkin Journal: Dig Dis Sci Date: 2016-03-22 Impact factor: 3.199
Authors: Lawrence C Hookey; David J Hurlbut; Andrew G Day; Paul N Manley; William T Depew Journal: Can J Gastroenterol Date: 2007-03 Impact factor: 3.522