Copyright
©The Author(s) 2019.
World J Gastrointest Endosc. Aug 16, 2019; 11(8): 454-471
Published online Aug 16, 2019. doi: 10.4253/wjge.v11.i8.454
Published online Aug 16, 2019. doi: 10.4253/wjge.v11.i8.454
Ref | Study design | N°Lesions,pan-creatic | Rose | Needles | Gauge | Diagnostic yield, % | Sample adequacy, % | Comments |
[64] | Cohort | (201) | No | Opposing bevel vs reverse bevel | 22-25 vs 20-22-25 | 71 vs 90 | 87 vs 99 | Opposing bevel needle resulted superior |
[65] | Cohort | 194 (100) | Only in 12% of cases | Franseen vs fork tip | 22 | 64 vs 85 | The use of ROSE is a confounding factor | Fork tip seems superior, but the study lack of methodology |
[66] | RCT | (50) | Yes | Franseen vs fork tip | 22 | > 90%, equivalent | 94 vs 98 | Equivalent |
[67] | Cohort | (66) | Procore | 22 vs 25 | 87.5 vs 82.1 | 98 vs 95 | Equivalent |
- Citation: Conti CB, Cereatti F, Grassia R. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided sampling of solid pancreatic masses: the fine needle aspiration or fine needle biopsy dilemma. Is the best needle yet to come? World J Gastrointest Endosc 2019; 11(8): 454-471
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/1948-5190/full/v11/i8/454.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4253/wjge.v11.i8.454