Prospective randomized comparison of a 22G core needle using standard versus capillary suction for EUS-guided sampling of solid pancreatic masses.
Prospective randomized comparison of a 22G core needle using standard versus capillary suction for EUS-guided sampling of solid pancreatic masses.
复制标题
使用标准 22G 空芯针与毛细管抽吸进行 EUS 引导下实体胰腺肿块取样的前瞻性随机比较。
DOI：
10.1055/s-0043-105492
复制
发表时间：
2017
影响因子：
2.6
通讯作者：
Krishnamurthy,Savitri
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Weston,BrianR;Ross,WilliamA;Bhutani,ManoopS;Lee,JeffreyH;Pande,Mala;Sholl,AndrewB;Krishnamurthy,Savitri
背景和研究目的用22 G Procore穿刺针（pc）对胰腺病变进行取样的最佳技术尚不清楚。 本研究的目的是评估22 GPC使用标准抽吸技术（SST）和毛细血管抽吸技术（CST）和比较诊断充分的22 GPC与标准25 G needle.Patients和methodsSixty连续患者转介EUS-FNA的一个坚实的胰腺肿块进行了前瞻性评价。 所有患者均使用标准25 G针进行2次穿刺，以进行细胞学分析。 第一组30例患者使用SST使用22 Gpc穿刺针进行单次穿刺，以进行细胞学和组织学检查。 第二组使用CST用22 Gpc穿刺针进行单次穿刺。 通过顺序是随机的。诊断充分的每一个通过分级由2个细胞病理学家不知情的技术和针typeforcomparation.ResultsFor一个细胞学诊断与22 Gpc，足够的样本中获得82.8%SST与80.0%CST（P= 0.79）。 对于22 Gpc的组织学诊断，在70.4% SST vs. 69.0% CST中获得了足够的样本（P= 0.91）。 对于细胞学诊断，22 Gpc的单次通过与25 G针的单次通过提供了相当的结果;对于组织学诊断，两者均上级22 Gpc的单次通过。 25 G针头两次通过提供的诊断标本为95.0%，而使用22 Gpc的一次通过提供的诊断标本为81.4%（P= 0.01）。 使用25 G针头进行2次穿刺的性能优于使用22 Gpc进行1次穿刺。 （NCT 01598194）会议报告：2015年消化系统疾病周
Background and study aimsThe optimal technique for sampling pancreatic lesions with a 22 G Procore needle (pc) is unknown. The aims of this study were to evaluate the 22 Gpc using standard suction technique (SST) and capillary suction technique (CST) and compare diagnostic adequacy of 22 Gpc with the standard 25 G needle.Patients and methodsSixty consecutive patients referred for EUS-FNA of a solid pancreatic mass were prospectively evaluated. All patients underwent 2 passes with a standard 25 G needle for cytologic analysis. The first group of 30 patients underwent a single pass with the 22 Gpc needle using SST for cytology and histology. The second group underwent a single pass with the 22 Gpc needle using CST. The sequence of passes was randomized. The diagnostic adequacy of each pass was graded by 2 cytopathologists blinded to technique and needle type for comparison.ResultsFor a cytologic diagnosis with 22 Gpc, an adequate sample was obtained in 82.8 % SST vs. 80.0 % CST (P= 0.79). For a histologic diagnosis with 22 Gpc, an adequate sample was obtained in 70.4 % SST vs. 69.0 % CST (P= 0.91). A single pass with 22 Gpc provided comparable results to a single pass with the 25 G needle for a cytologic diagnosis; both were superior to a single 22 Gpc pass for a histologic diagnosis. Two passes with the 25 G needle provided a diagnostic specimen in 95.0 % vs 81.4 % with one pass using 22 Gpc (P= 0.01).ConclusionsNo significant difference in diagnostic adequacy was observed between techniques for the 22 Gpc. Two passes with a 25 G needle performed better than 1 pass with 22 Gpc. (NCT01598194)Meeting presentations: Digestive Disease Week 2015