We have located links that may give you full text access.
Comparative Study
Controlled Clinical Trial
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
A prospective, comparative trial to optimize sampling techniques in EUS-guided FNA of solid pancreatic masses.
Gastrointestinal Endoscopy 2013 May
BACKGROUND: There is no standardization of the use of suction during puncturing of a target in pancreatic EUS-guided FNA (EUS-FNA). It is also debatable whether expressing aspirates from the needle by the traditional method of reinserting the stylet is more effective than by air flushing, which is easier and safer.
OBJECTIVE: To optimize sampling techniques in pancreatic EUS-FNA.
DESIGN: Prospective, comparative trial.
SETTING: Tertiary-care referral center.
PATIENTS: Eighty-one consecutive patients with solid pancreatic masses.
INTERVENTION: Four punctures were performed for each mass in random order by a 2 × 2 factorial design. Sample quality and diagnostic yield were compared between samples with suction (S+) versus no suction (S-) and expressed by reinserting the stylet (RS) versus air flushing (AF).
MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Sample quality by the number of diagnostic samples, cellularity, bloodiness, and air-drying artifact; diagnostic yield by accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity.
RESULTS: The number of diagnostic samples (72.8% vs 58.6%; P = .001), cellularity (odds ratio [OR] 2.12; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.37-3.30; P < .001), bloodiness (OR 1.46; CI, 1.28-1.68; P < .001), accuracy (85.2% vs 75.9%; P = .004), and sensitivity (82.4% vs 72.1%; P = .005) were higher in S+ than in S-. Bloodiness was lower in AF than in RS (OR 1.16; CI, 1.03-1.30; P = .017).
LIMITATIONS: Single-center trial, 2 kinds of needle gauges, and no immediate cytopathology evaluation.
CONCLUSION: Puncturing with suction and expressing by air flushing may be used preferentially in pancreatic EUS-FNA because they were more effective and convenient techniques. (
CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01354795.).
OBJECTIVE: To optimize sampling techniques in pancreatic EUS-FNA.
DESIGN: Prospective, comparative trial.
SETTING: Tertiary-care referral center.
PATIENTS: Eighty-one consecutive patients with solid pancreatic masses.
INTERVENTION: Four punctures were performed for each mass in random order by a 2 × 2 factorial design. Sample quality and diagnostic yield were compared between samples with suction (S+) versus no suction (S-) and expressed by reinserting the stylet (RS) versus air flushing (AF).
MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Sample quality by the number of diagnostic samples, cellularity, bloodiness, and air-drying artifact; diagnostic yield by accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity.
RESULTS: The number of diagnostic samples (72.8% vs 58.6%; P = .001), cellularity (odds ratio [OR] 2.12; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.37-3.30; P < .001), bloodiness (OR 1.46; CI, 1.28-1.68; P < .001), accuracy (85.2% vs 75.9%; P = .004), and sensitivity (82.4% vs 72.1%; P = .005) were higher in S+ than in S-. Bloodiness was lower in AF than in RS (OR 1.16; CI, 1.03-1.30; P = .017).
LIMITATIONS: Single-center trial, 2 kinds of needle gauges, and no immediate cytopathology evaluation.
CONCLUSION: Puncturing with suction and expressing by air flushing may be used preferentially in pancreatic EUS-FNA because they were more effective and convenient techniques. (
CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01354795.).
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app