IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0154401.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Prospective Study for Comparison of Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Tissue Acquisition Using 25- and 22-Gauge Core Biopsy Needles in Solid Pancreatic Masses

Author

Listed:
  • Se Woo Park
  • Moon Jae Chung
  • Sang Hoon Lee
  • Hee Seung Lee
  • Hyun Jik Lee
  • Jeong Yup Park
  • Seung Woo Park
  • Si Young Song
  • Hoguen Kim
  • Jae Bock Chung
  • Seungmin Bang

Abstract

Background and Aims: Although thicker needles theoretically allow more tissue to be collected, their decreased flexibility can cause mechanical damage to the endoscope, technical failure, and sample blood contamination. The effects of needle gauge on diagnostic outcomes of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) of pancreatic mass lesions remain unknown. This study compared procurement rates of histologic cores obtained from EUS-FNB of pancreatic masses using 25- and 22-gauge core biopsy needles. Patients and Methods: From March 2014 to July 2014, 66 patients with solid pancreatic mass underwent EUS-FNB with both 25- and 22-gauge core biopsy needles. Among them, 10 patients were excluded and thus 56 patients were eligible for the analyses. Needle sequences were randomly assigned, and two passes were made with each needle, consisting of 10 uniform to-and-fro movements on each pass with 10 mL syringe suction. A pathologist blinded to needle sequence evaluated specimens for the presence of histologic core. Results: The mean patient age was 65.8 ± 9.5 years (range, 44–89 years); 35 patients (62.5%) were men. The mean pancreatic mass size was 35.3 ± 17.1 mm (range 14–122.3 mm). Twenty-eight patients (50%) had tumors at the pancreas head or uncinate process. There were no significant differences in procurement rates of histologic cores between 25-gauge (49/56, 87.5%) and 22-gauge (46/56, 82.1%, P = 0.581) needles or diagnostic accuracy using only histologic cores (98% and 95%). There were no technical failures or procedure-related adverse events. Conclusions: The 25-gauge core biopsy needle could offer acceptable and comparable outcomes regarding diagnostic performance including histologic core procurement rates compared to the 22-gauge core biopsy needle, although the differences were not statistically significant. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01795066

Suggested Citation

  • Se Woo Park & Moon Jae Chung & Sang Hoon Lee & Hee Seung Lee & Hyun Jik Lee & Jeong Yup Park & Seung Woo Park & Si Young Song & Hoguen Kim & Jae Bock Chung & Seungmin Bang, 2016. "Prospective Study for Comparison of Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Tissue Acquisition Using 25- and 22-Gauge Core Biopsy Needles in Solid Pancreatic Masses," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(5), pages 1-12, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0154401
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0154401
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0154401
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0154401&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0154401?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0154401. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.