4.6 Article

19 G aspiration needle versus 19 G core biopsy needle for endoscopic ultrasound-guided liver biopsy: a prospective randomized trial

Journal

ENDOSCOPY
Volume 51, Issue 11, Pages 1059-1065

Publisher

GEORG THIEME VERLAG KG
DOI: 10.1055/a-0956-6922

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background Endoscopic ultrasound-guided liver biopsy (EUS-LB) is a safe and effective method for accomplishing parenchymal liver biopsy. The aim of this study was to compare a 19 G aspiration needle (FNA) with a 19 G Franseen-tip core biopsy needle (FNB) for EUS-LB. Methods This was a prospective, parallel group, randomized trial comparing the tissue yields and adequacy of a 19 G FNA needle vs. a 19 G FNB needle for EUS-LB. The primary outcome was length of the longest piece of liver core specimen. Secondary outcomes were aggregate specimen length, number of complete portal triads (CPTs), and adverse events. One transgastric pass and one transduodenal pass were performed with the same needle in each patient. Specimen lengths were measured before and after histological processing. Results 40 patients referred for EUS-LB were randomized to either the FNA group (n = 20) or the FNB group (n = 20). Both groups had similar patient characteristics. FNB biopsies yielded longer mean (standard deviation) specimen lengths (pre-processing mean 2.09 cm [0.41] vs. mean 1.47 cm [0.46], and post-processing mean 1.78 cm [0.66] vs. mean 1.05 cm [0.42]; both P < 0.001), a longer aggregate specimen length (pre-processing mean 15.78 cm [5.19] vs. 10.89 cm [4.38]; P = 0.003), and more CPTs (mean 42.6 25 vs 18.1 [9.3]; P < 0.001) compared with the FNA needle. There were no severe adverse events or difference in adverse event rate between the two needles. Post-biopsy pain was noted in 37.5 %. Conclusion EUS-LB using the FNB needle delivered longer liver biopsy specimens with more CPTs than the regular (non-core) needle.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available