Comparison of Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Tissue Acquisition Using a 20-Gauge Menghini Needle with a Lateral Forward Bevel and a 22-Gauge Franseen Needle: A Single-Center Large Cohort Study.
Biopsy
Endoscopic ultrasonography
Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration
Journal
Clinical endoscopy
ISSN: 2234-2400
Titre abrégé: Clin Endosc
Pays: Korea (South)
ID NLM: 101576886
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Sep 2021
Sep 2021
Historique:
received:
14
09
2020
accepted:
08
11
2020
pubmed:
5
3
2021
medline:
5
3
2021
entrez:
4
3
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Several fine-needle biopsy (FNB) needles are available for endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided tissue acquisition. However, there is disagreement on which type of needle has the best diagnostic yield. The aim of this study was to compare the performance and safety of two commonly used EUS-FNB needles. We retrospectively analyzed consecutive patients who underwent EUS-FNB between June 2016 and March 2020 in our hospital. Two types of needles were evaluated: a 20-gauge Menghini needle with a lateral forward bevel and a 22-gauge Franseen needle. Rapid on-site evaluation was performed in all the cases. A multivariate analysis was performed to clarify the negative predictive factors for obtaining a histological diagnosis. Propensity score matching was performed to compare the diagnostic yields of these two needles. We analyzed 666 patients and 690 lesions. The overall diagnostic rate of histology alone was 88.8%, and the overall adverse event rate was 1.5%. Transduodenal access and small lesions (≤2 cm) were identified as negative predictive factors for obtaining a histological diagnosis. After propensity score matching, 482 lesions were analyzed. The diagnostic accuracy rates of histology in the M and F needle groups were 89.2% and 88.8%, respectively (p=1.00). Both the needles showed high diagnostic yield, and no significant difference in performance was observed between the two.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND/AIMS
OBJECTIVE
Several fine-needle biopsy (FNB) needles are available for endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided tissue acquisition. However, there is disagreement on which type of needle has the best diagnostic yield. The aim of this study was to compare the performance and safety of two commonly used EUS-FNB needles.
METHODS
METHODS
We retrospectively analyzed consecutive patients who underwent EUS-FNB between June 2016 and March 2020 in our hospital. Two types of needles were evaluated: a 20-gauge Menghini needle with a lateral forward bevel and a 22-gauge Franseen needle. Rapid on-site evaluation was performed in all the cases. A multivariate analysis was performed to clarify the negative predictive factors for obtaining a histological diagnosis. Propensity score matching was performed to compare the diagnostic yields of these two needles.
RESULTS
RESULTS
We analyzed 666 patients and 690 lesions. The overall diagnostic rate of histology alone was 88.8%, and the overall adverse event rate was 1.5%. Transduodenal access and small lesions (≤2 cm) were identified as negative predictive factors for obtaining a histological diagnosis. After propensity score matching, 482 lesions were analyzed. The diagnostic accuracy rates of histology in the M and F needle groups were 89.2% and 88.8%, respectively (p=1.00).
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Both the needles showed high diagnostic yield, and no significant difference in performance was observed between the two.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33657780
pii: ce.2020.251
doi: 10.5946/ce.2020.251
pmc: PMC8505170
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
730-738Références
Endosc Ultrasound. 2019 Nov-Dec;8(6):412-417
pubmed: 31417069
Gastrointest Endosc. 2010 Mar;71(3):446-54
pubmed: 20189503
United European Gastroenterol J. 2019 Feb;7(1):96-104
pubmed: 30788121
Bone Marrow Transplant. 2013 Mar;48(3):452-8
pubmed: 23208313
Clin Endosc. 2021 Mar;54(2):261-268
pubmed: 32892519
Endoscopy. 2016 Jul;48(7):632-8
pubmed: 27129137
Endosc Int Open. 2018 Oct;6(10):E1278-E1282
pubmed: 30302387
Endoscopy. 2006 Sep;38(9):919-24
pubmed: 16981110
J Gastroenterol. 2005 Sep;40(9):907-11
pubmed: 16211348
Gut Liver. 2019 May 15;13(3):349-355
pubmed: 30600677
Endoscopy. 2014 Dec;46(12):1056-62
pubmed: 25098611
Dig Endosc. 2019 Mar;31(2):197-202
pubmed: 30256458
World J Gastrointest Endosc. 2019 Aug 16;11(8):454-471
pubmed: 31523377
Endosc Ultrasound. 2019 Jan-Feb;8(1):50-57
pubmed: 29786033
Clin Endosc. 2018 Nov;51(6):576-583
pubmed: 30001616
Endosc Ultrasound. 2019 Jul-Aug;8(4):261-268
pubmed: 31115386
Dig Dis Sci. 2020 Apr;65(4):1155-1163
pubmed: 31531819
Surg Endosc. 2015 Jun;29(6):1586-90
pubmed: 25303907
Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2012 Mar;10(3):316-22
pubmed: 22019795
Endoscopy. 2013 Jun;45(6):445-50
pubmed: 23504490
Dig Endosc. 2017 May;29(3):338-346
pubmed: 27878861
Dig Endosc. 2020 Jan;32(1):114-126
pubmed: 31166046
Endosc Int Open. 2018 May;6(5):E553-E557
pubmed: 29756012
Surg Endosc. 2018 Oct;32(10):4125-4131
pubmed: 29603000
Gastrointest Endosc. 2018 Feb;87(2):495-500
pubmed: 28882575
Dig Dis Sci. 2014 Jul;59(7):1578-85
pubmed: 24429514
Gastrointest Endosc. 2018 Jun;87(6):1432-1438
pubmed: 29305893
Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am. 2014 Jan;24(1):109-24
pubmed: 24215763
Dig Endosc. 2019 Mar;31(2):156-163
pubmed: 30171772
Gastrointest Endosc. 2019 Feb;89(2):329-339
pubmed: 30367877
Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am. 2017 Oct;27(4):585-599
pubmed: 28918800
World J Gastroenterol. 2016 Oct 21;22(39):8820-8830
pubmed: 27818598
Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am. 2014 Jan;24(1):57-69
pubmed: 24215760
Scand J Gastroenterol. 2019 Apr;54(4):499-505
pubmed: 31067140
Gut Liver. 2017 Jul 15;11(4):559-566
pubmed: 28208006
Gut Liver. 2009 Jun;3(2):116-21
pubmed: 20431733
Gastrointest Endosc. 2016 Dec;84(6):1034-1039
pubmed: 27018087