RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The difference in the diagnostic accuracy of 22- versus 25-gauge needles in EUS-FNA is not clear. AIMS: To compare the rates of technical success, diagnostic accuracy and complications of EUS-FNA performed with 22-gauge and 25-gauge needles on the same solid pancreatic mass. METHODS: All patients with solid pancreatic masses evaluated from September 2007 to December 2008 were enrolled and underwent EUS-FNA with both 22- and 25-gauge needles with randomisation of needle sequence. The accuracy of the EUS-FNA was determined by comparing the cytological results with the final surgical pathological diagnoses or with the results of a clinical follow-up. A cytological score with different qualitative parameters was created, and a comparison between these parameters was carried out for each needle. RESULTS: Fifty patients with 50 pancreatic masses were recruited. Technical success was 100% and no complications occurred. Diagnostic accuracy was 94% and 86% for the 25- and 22-gauge needles, respectively. Analysis of the cytological score showed a tendency towards the 25-gauge needle, although the difference was not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: EUS-FNA performed with 22- or 25-gauge needles had the same diagnostic accuracy. Our study results confirm a significant trend towards a better cytological diagnosis for the 25-gauge needle.
Asunto(s)
Biopsia con Aguja Fina/instrumentación , Neoplasias Pancreáticas/patología , Anciano , Anciano de 80 o más Años , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Valor Predictivo de las Pruebas , Estudios Prospectivos , Reproducibilidad de los Resultados , Ultrasonografía IntervencionalRESUMEN
BACKGROUND AND AIM: Endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) is a minimally invasive diagnostic tool for common bile duct stones (CBDS) and may be used to select patients for therapeutic endoscopic retrograde cholangiography (ERC). The aim of this trial is to compare, in patients with non-high-risk for CDBS, the clinical and economic impact of EUS plus ERC performed in a single endoscopic session versus EUS plus ERC in two separate sessions. METHODS: During an 11-month period, all adult patients admitted to the emergency department with suspicion of CBDS were categorized into either high-risk or non-high-risk groups, on the basis of clinical, biochemical, or transabdominal ultrasound findings. Patients in the non-high-risk group were randomized to receive EUS plus ERC in one single or in two separate sessions. RESULTS: Eighty patients were recruited and randomized. Forty patients underwent EUS plus ERC in a single session and 40 patients underwent EUS plus ERC in two separate sessions. Negative EUS examination for CBDS avoided unnecessary ERC to 33 patients. Out of 47 patients with positive EUS (25 from the single session group and 22 from the double session), ERC confirmed the presence of CBDS in 46 cases (EUS sensitivity 100% and specificity 98%). Average time of procedure and hospitalization were significantly shorter in the single session group compared to the two session group. The single session strategy was also less expensive. CONCLUSION: Endoscopic ultrasonography plus ERC with sphincterotomy and stone extraction performed during the same endoscopic session was safe and efficacious with a reduction of procedure time, hospitalization and costs.