Copyright
©2014 Baishideng Publishing Group Co.
World J Gastroenterol. Mar 7, 2014; 20(9): 2176-2185
Published online Mar 7, 2014. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v20.i9.2176
Published online Mar 7, 2014. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v20.i9.2176
Ref. | Needle size | Number of patients | Histological adequacy | Location of biopsy |
Bang et al[45] | 22-G FNA | 28 | 66.7% | Pancreas |
22-G FNB | 28 | |||
Yasuda et al[52] | 19-G | 104 | 98.0% | Lymph nodes |
Rong et al[51] | 22-G | 54 | 70.4% | Pancreas |
25-G | 54 | 61.1% | Pancreas | |
22-G | 27 | 74.1% | Submucosal tumors | |
25-G | 27 | 55.6% | Submucosal tumors | |
Larghi et al[53] | 19-G | 120 | 97.5% | Various |
Varadarajulu et al[19] | 19-G1 | 38 | 94.7% | Subepithelial masses |
Pancreatic (head and uncinate lesions) |
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) |
- Citation: Karadsheh Z, Al-Haddad M. Endoscopic ultrasound guided fine needle tissue acquisition: Where we stand in 2013? World J Gastroenterol 2014; 20(9): 2176-2185
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/1007-9327/full/v20/i9/2176.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v20.i9.2176