A Prospective Comparison of EUS-Guided FNA Using 25-Gauge and 22-Gauge Needles
Background and Aims. There are limited data on the differences in diagnostic yield between 25-gauge and 22-gauge EUS-FNA needles. This prospective study compared the difference in diagnostic yield between a 22-gauge and a 25-gauge needle when performing EUS-FNA. Methods. Forty-three patients with...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Wiley
2009-01-01
|
| Series: | Gastroenterology Research and Practice |
| Online Access: | http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2009/546390 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1850172605256957952 |
|---|---|
| author | Hiroo Imazu Yujiro Uchiyama Hiroshi Kakutani kei-ichi Ikeda Kazuki Sumiyama Mitsuru Kaise Salem Omar Tiing Leong Ang Hisao Tajiri |
| author_facet | Hiroo Imazu Yujiro Uchiyama Hiroshi Kakutani kei-ichi Ikeda Kazuki Sumiyama Mitsuru Kaise Salem Omar Tiing Leong Ang Hisao Tajiri |
| author_sort | Hiroo Imazu |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Background and Aims. There are limited data on the differences in diagnostic yield between 25-gauge and 22-gauge EUS-FNA needles. This prospective study compared the difference in diagnostic yield between a 22-gauge and a 25-gauge needle when performing EUS-FNA. Methods. Forty-three patients with intraluminal or extraluminal mass lesions and/or lymphadenopathy were enrolled prospectively. EUS-FNA was performed for each mass lesion using both 25- and 22-gauge needles. The differences in accuracy rate, scoring of needle visibility, ease of puncture and quantity of obtained specimen were evaluated. Results. The overall accuracy of 22- and 25-gauge needle was similar at 81% and 76% respectively (N.S). Likewise the visibility scores of both needles were also similar. Overall the quantity of specimen obtained higher with the 22-gauge needle (score: 1.64 vs. P<.001). However the 25-gauge needle was significantly superior to the 22-gauge needle in terms of ease of puncture (score: 1.9 vs. 1.29, P<.001) and in the quantity of specimen in the context of pancreatic mass EUS-FNA (score: 1.8 vs. 1.58, P<.05). Conclusion. The 22-gauge and 25-gauge needles have similar overall diagnostic yield. The 25-gauge needle appeared superior in the subset of patients with hard lesions and pancreatic masses. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-d0b0034ced71450c8abd2a72957593b1 |
| institution | OA Journals |
| issn | 1687-6121 1687-630X |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2009-01-01 |
| publisher | Wiley |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Gastroenterology Research and Practice |
| spelling | doaj-art-d0b0034ced71450c8abd2a72957593b12025-08-20T02:20:02ZengWileyGastroenterology Research and Practice1687-61211687-630X2009-01-01200910.1155/2009/546390546390A Prospective Comparison of EUS-Guided FNA Using 25-Gauge and 22-Gauge NeedlesHiroo Imazu0Yujiro Uchiyama1Hiroshi Kakutani2kei-ichi Ikeda3Kazuki Sumiyama4Mitsuru Kaise5Salem Omar6Tiing Leong Ang7Hisao Tajiri8Department of Endoscopy, The Jikei University School of Medicine, Tokyo 105-8461, JapanDepartment of Endoscopy, The Jikei University School of Medicine, Tokyo 105-8461, JapanDepartment of Endoscopy, The Jikei University School of Medicine, Tokyo 105-8461, JapanDepartment of Endoscopy, The Jikei University School of Medicine, Tokyo 105-8461, JapanDepartment of Endoscopy, The Jikei University School of Medicine, Tokyo 105-8461, JapanDepartment of Endoscopy, The Jikei University School of Medicine, Tokyo 105-8461, JapanDivision of Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur 50603, MalaysiaDivision of Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine, Changi General Hospital, 529889, SingaporeDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Internal Medicine, The Jikei University, Tokyo 105-8461, JapanBackground and Aims. There are limited data on the differences in diagnostic yield between 25-gauge and 22-gauge EUS-FNA needles. This prospective study compared the difference in diagnostic yield between a 22-gauge and a 25-gauge needle when performing EUS-FNA. Methods. Forty-three patients with intraluminal or extraluminal mass lesions and/or lymphadenopathy were enrolled prospectively. EUS-FNA was performed for each mass lesion using both 25- and 22-gauge needles. The differences in accuracy rate, scoring of needle visibility, ease of puncture and quantity of obtained specimen were evaluated. Results. The overall accuracy of 22- and 25-gauge needle was similar at 81% and 76% respectively (N.S). Likewise the visibility scores of both needles were also similar. Overall the quantity of specimen obtained higher with the 22-gauge needle (score: 1.64 vs. P<.001). However the 25-gauge needle was significantly superior to the 22-gauge needle in terms of ease of puncture (score: 1.9 vs. 1.29, P<.001) and in the quantity of specimen in the context of pancreatic mass EUS-FNA (score: 1.8 vs. 1.58, P<.05). Conclusion. The 22-gauge and 25-gauge needles have similar overall diagnostic yield. The 25-gauge needle appeared superior in the subset of patients with hard lesions and pancreatic masses.http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2009/546390 |
| spellingShingle | Hiroo Imazu Yujiro Uchiyama Hiroshi Kakutani kei-ichi Ikeda Kazuki Sumiyama Mitsuru Kaise Salem Omar Tiing Leong Ang Hisao Tajiri A Prospective Comparison of EUS-Guided FNA Using 25-Gauge and 22-Gauge Needles Gastroenterology Research and Practice |
| title | A Prospective Comparison of EUS-Guided FNA Using 25-Gauge and 22-Gauge Needles |
| title_full | A Prospective Comparison of EUS-Guided FNA Using 25-Gauge and 22-Gauge Needles |
| title_fullStr | A Prospective Comparison of EUS-Guided FNA Using 25-Gauge and 22-Gauge Needles |
| title_full_unstemmed | A Prospective Comparison of EUS-Guided FNA Using 25-Gauge and 22-Gauge Needles |
| title_short | A Prospective Comparison of EUS-Guided FNA Using 25-Gauge and 22-Gauge Needles |
| title_sort | prospective comparison of eus guided fna using 25 gauge and 22 gauge needles |
| url | http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2009/546390 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT hirooimazu aprospectivecomparisonofeusguidedfnausing25gaugeand22gaugeneedles AT yujirouchiyama aprospectivecomparisonofeusguidedfnausing25gaugeand22gaugeneedles AT hiroshikakutani aprospectivecomparisonofeusguidedfnausing25gaugeand22gaugeneedles AT keiichiikeda aprospectivecomparisonofeusguidedfnausing25gaugeand22gaugeneedles AT kazukisumiyama aprospectivecomparisonofeusguidedfnausing25gaugeand22gaugeneedles AT mitsurukaise aprospectivecomparisonofeusguidedfnausing25gaugeand22gaugeneedles AT salemomar aprospectivecomparisonofeusguidedfnausing25gaugeand22gaugeneedles AT tiingleongang aprospectivecomparisonofeusguidedfnausing25gaugeand22gaugeneedles AT hisaotajiri aprospectivecomparisonofeusguidedfnausing25gaugeand22gaugeneedles AT hirooimazu prospectivecomparisonofeusguidedfnausing25gaugeand22gaugeneedles AT yujirouchiyama prospectivecomparisonofeusguidedfnausing25gaugeand22gaugeneedles AT hiroshikakutani prospectivecomparisonofeusguidedfnausing25gaugeand22gaugeneedles AT keiichiikeda prospectivecomparisonofeusguidedfnausing25gaugeand22gaugeneedles AT kazukisumiyama prospectivecomparisonofeusguidedfnausing25gaugeand22gaugeneedles AT mitsurukaise prospectivecomparisonofeusguidedfnausing25gaugeand22gaugeneedles AT salemomar prospectivecomparisonofeusguidedfnausing25gaugeand22gaugeneedles AT tiingleongang prospectivecomparisonofeusguidedfnausing25gaugeand22gaugeneedles AT hisaotajiri prospectivecomparisonofeusguidedfnausing25gaugeand22gaugeneedles |