Role of macroscopic on-site evaluation of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration/biopsy: Results of a multicentric prospective study

doi:10.4253/wjge.v16.i11.595

Advanced Search

BPG is committed to discovery and dissemination of knowledge

Home / Archive / Volume 16, Issue 11

This Article

Academic Content and Language Evaluation of This Article

CrossCheck and Google Search of This Article

Academic Rules and Norms of This Article

Citation of this article

Corresponding Author of This Article

Research Domain of This Article

Article-Type of This Article

Open-Access Policy of This Article

Times Cited Counts in Google of This Article

Number of Hits and Downloads for This Article

Total Article Views (141)

All Articles published online

The chart showing PDF series, HTML series, Figures (1-2) series, Tables (1-6) series.

Item

Count

PDF

HTML

Figures (1-2)

Tables (1-6)

Sum=77

Featured Article

The chart showing Browse series, Download series.

Item

Count

Browse

Download

Sum=30

Publishing Process of This Article

Item

Count

Browse

Download

Sum=29

Nov 16, 2024 (publication date) through Oct 31, 2024

Times Cited of This Article

Times Cited (0)

Journal Information of This Article

Publication Name

World Journal of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

ISSN

1948-5190

Publisher of This Article

Baishideng Publishing Group Inc, 7041 Koll Center Parkway, Suite 160, Pleasanton, CA 94566, USA

Observational Study

World J Gastrointest Endosc. Nov 16, 2024; 16(11): 595-606
Published online Nov 16, 2024. doi: 10.4253/wjge.v16.i11.595

Table 5 Relation between the final diagnosis and the type and size of the needle

	Final diagnosis
	Inconclusive, n (%)¹	Conclusive, n (%)¹	P value
Type of needle
FNA-EchoTip-Cook	4 (12.1)	29 (87.9)	0.035^a
FNA-Expect-Boston	1 (1.5)	67 (98.5)
FNB-Franseen Acquire-Boston	39 (5.2)	712 (94.8)
FNB-Medtronic	0 (0)	20 (100)
FNB-ProCore-Cook	1 (2.5)	39 (97.5)
FNB-Trident-Microtech	0 (0)	96 (100)
Type of needle (FNA or FNB)
FNA	5 (5)	96 (95)	0.803
FNB	40 (4.4)	867 (95.6)	0.803
Size of the needle
19 G	3 (10.3)	26 (89.7)	0.176
20 G	3 (7.9)	35 (92.1)
22 G	39 (4.1)	902 (95.9)
Specimen acquisition method
Both	10 (3)	327 (97)	0.079
Capillary method	11 (3.8)	279 (96.2)
Suction method	24 (6.3)	357 (93.7)
MOSE-1 classification
Good cores (score 1)	16 (2.6)	602 (97.4)	< 0.001^a
Bloody cores (scores 2 and 3)	29 (7.4)	361 (92.6)	< 0.001^a
MOSE-2 classification
Score 2	14 (7.2)	180 (92.8)	0.002^a
Score 3	20 (2.6)	750 (97.4)	0.002^a

^aP value < 0.05 is considered significant.

¹Percentages were calculated within the row.

MOSE: Macroscopic on-site evaluation; FNA: fine-needle aspiration; FNB: Fine-needle biopsy.

Citation: Okasha HH, Hussein HA, Ragab KM, Abdallah O, Rouibaa F, Mohamed B, Ghalim F, Farouk M, Lasheen M, Elbasiony MA, Alzamzamy AE, El Deeb A, Atalla H, El-Ansary M, Mohamed S, Elshair M, Khannoussi W, Abu-Amer MZ, Elmekkaoui A, Naguib MS, Ait Errami A, El-Meligui A, El-Habashi AH, Ameen MG, Abdelfatah D, Kaddah M, Delsa H. Role of macroscopic on-site evaluation of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration/biopsy: Results of a multicentric prospective study. World J Gastrointest Endosc 2024; 16(11): 595-606
URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/1948-5190/full/v16/i11/595.htm
DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4253/wjge.v16.i11.595