Endoscopic ultrasound guided fine needle tissue acquisition: Where we stand in 2013?

Table 2 Quality of samples using different needle sizes as reported by recent studies

Ref.	Needle size	Number of patients	Location of lesion	Result
Lee et al[55]	22-G and 25-G	12	Pancreas and peripancreatic	No difference between the two needles in terms of cellularity (P = 0.84)
Siddiqui et al[56]	22-G and 25-G	131	Pancreas	No significant difference in diagnostic yield (P = 0.18)
		(22-G = 64 patients)
		(25-G = 67 patients)
Fabbri et al[57]	22-G and 25-G	50	Pancreas	No significant difference in diagnostic accuracy 94% vs 86%
Imazu et al[58]	22-G and 25-G	43	Pancreas, lymph nodes, submucosal tumors	Similar overall diagnostic yield
				22 > 25 in submucosal lesions (80% vs 60%)
				25-G > 22-G in pancreatic lesions (91.5% vs 75%)
Camellini et al[59]	22-G and 25-G	127	Pancreatic, lymph nodes and subepithelial tumors	No significant difference in sample adequacy overall (77.8% vs 78.1%)
				Pancreatic lesions: 25-G > 22-G (87.8% vs 76.7%)
				Subepithelial lesions: 22-G > 25-G (55.5% vs 20%)
				Lymph nodes: 22-G > 25-G (100% vs 60%)
Sakamoto et al[18]	19-G, 22-G and 25-G	24	Pancreas	19-G and 22-G > 25-G in adequacy of samples for histological diagnosis
				25-G had better diagnostic accuracy in pancreatic head and uncinate lesions
Song et al[61]	19-G and 22-G	117	Pancreatic and peripancreatic lesions	Sample quality and cellular material: 19-G > 22-G (P = 0.03)