scholarly journals Pull vs. wet: rendimiento diagnóstico y calidad de las muestras de las PAAF guiadas por USE en las masas sólidas del páncreas

2021 ◽  
Vol 51 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Cecilia Curvale ◽  
Ignacio Málaga ◽  
Paloma Rojas Saunero ◽  
Viviana Tassi ◽  
Enrique Martins ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Endoscopic Ultrasound ◽  
Fine Needle Aspiration ◽  
Diagnostic Yield ◽  
Needle Aspiration ◽  
Double Blind Study ◽  
Cell Block ◽  
Ultrasound Guided ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Fine Needle ◽  
Significant Difference

Differential diagnosis of pancreatic masses is challenging. The endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration method with the highest diagnostic yield has not been established. It was realized a prospective, randomized, double-blind study of the endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration in solid lesions of the pancreas to compare and evaluate diagnostic yield and aspirate quality between wet and pull technique. Forty-one patients were enrolled. The wet technique presented a sensitivity, a specificity, a positive and negative predictive value, and a diagnostic accuracy of 58.3%, 100%, 100%, 25% and 63.4%, respectively. In the capillary technique they were: 75%, 100%, 100%, 35.7% and 78.1%, respectively. Comparing the diagnostic yield between both techniques, there was no statistically significant difference (McNemar’s test p = 0.388). Regarding the cellularity of the specimen, both in cytology and the cell block samples, no significant difference was observed between the techniques (p = 0.84 and 0.61, respectively). With respect to contaminating blood in the specimen, there was no difference in cytology samples (p = 0.89) and no difference in cell block samples (p = 0.08). The suitability of cytology samples for diagnosis was similar in both techniques (wet = 57.5% and capillary = 56.7%, p = 0.94) and there was no difference in cell block samples (wet = 75% and capillary = 66.1%, p = 0.38). In this study we did not observe differences in diagnostic yield or sample quality. Since both techniques are effective, we suggest the simultaneous and alternate use of both methods.

scholarly journals Comparison of Diagnostic Yield of Endoscopic Ultrasound-guided Fine-needle Aspiration Cytology and Cell Block in Solid Lesions

2017 ◽  
Vol 08 (04) ◽  
pp. 176-181 ◽  
Author(s):  
Avinash Bhat Balekuduru ◽  
Amit Kumar Dutta ◽  
Sanjeev Kumar Nagaruru ◽  
Shamim Sheik ◽  
Suneetha Parandhamaiah Kurella ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Endoscopic Ultrasound ◽  
Fine Needle Aspiration ◽  
Tissue Sample ◽  
Diagnostic Yield ◽  
Needle Aspiration ◽  
Cell Block ◽  
Ultrasound Guided ◽  
Fine Needle ◽  
Submucosal Lesions ◽  
Solid Lesions

ABSTRACT Background and Aim: Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is a procedure of choice for the diagnostic evaluation of submucosal and periluminal lesions. Tissue sample can be obtained by EUS-FNA cytology (FNAC) or cell block (CB). The aim of the present study is to compare diagnostic yield of EUS-FNA CB and cytology in the absence of onsite pathologist following a protocol-based EUS-FNA approach in solid lesions. Patients and Methods: Participants who underwent EUS-FNA at our center for solid submucosal or periluminal lesions (pancreas, lymph node, and liver) between 2014 and 2016 were included, retrospectively. The indication for the procedure along with the clinical and other investigation details and the final etiological diagnosis were recorded on uniform structured data forms. The diagnostic yield of cytology and CB were compared using McNemar’s test. The P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: EUS-FNA for solid lesion was performed in 130 lesions in 101 patients during the study period. Their mean age was 52.5 ± 12 years and 42.5% were female. Pancreatic masses were the most common lesions (37.7%) followed by lymph nodes (36.9%). Submucosal lesions (17.7%) and liver lesions (7.7%) accounted for rest of the cases. The overall diagnostic yield for EUS-FNAC (70%) and CB (74.6%) was not significantly different (P = 0.3) and their combined yield was 85.3%. For the 23 patients with submucosal lesion, diagnostic yield of CB (82.6%) was significantly better than cytology (47.8%, P = 0.04). Conclusions: EUS-guided CB has better yield compared to cytology in gastrointestinal submucosal lesions. The combination of CB with cytology improves the overall yield of the procedure; and hence, they should be considered complimentary rather than alternatives.

scholarly journals Randomized controlled trial of comparison of the adequacy, and diagnostic yield of endoscopic ultrasound guided fine needle aspiration with and without a stylet in Indian patients: A prospective single blind study

2014 ◽  
Vol 05 (04) ◽  
pp. 149-153 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sandeep Nijhawan ◽  
Bir Singh ◽  
Amritesh Kumar ◽  
Dilip Ramrakhiani ◽  
Amit Mathur ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Endoscopic Ultrasound ◽  
Fine Needle Aspiration ◽  
Diagnostic Yield ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Needle Aspiration ◽  
Ultrasound Guided ◽  
Fine Needle ◽  
Tertiary Center ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Number Of Passes

Abstract Background: Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is done using EUS-FNA needle with an internal stylet by most of the endosonographers. There is no data to suggest that it improves the quality of cytology specimen, and it is tedious and time-consuming. Aim: To compare EUS-FNA specimens obtained with stylet and without stylet for adequacy of the specimen, amount of blood on the slide, number of passes and diagnostic yield. Materials and Methods: Patients undergoing EUS-FNA of solid lesions by one experienced endosonographer at an Indian tertiary center from October 2013 to July 2014 were included. Totally, 115 consecutive patients with 128 lesions were randomized to undergo EUS-FNA with or without stylet. Cytology slides were evaluated by a single pathologist blinded to FNA technique. Results: EUS-FNA was done with stylet in 66 lesions (Group 1) and without stylet in 62 lesions (Group 2). Site of lesion was lymph node in 67 (52.3%), pancreas in 43 (33.6%), liver in 8 (6.2%), gastrointestinal subepithelial lesion in 4 (3.1%) and others in 6 (4.9%). The average size of the lesion was 23.7 ± 14.8. When outcomes of two groups were compared, there was no statistically significant difference in adequacy of smears (P = 1.00), amount of blood on slides (P = 0.92), number of passes (P = 0.49) and diagnostic yield (P = 0.86). Conclusions: There was no significant difference in adequacy of the specimen, amount of blood on the slide, number of passes and diagnostic yield between with and without a stylet groups. The use of a stylet does not confer any advantage during EUS-FNA.

Endoscopic Ultrasound Guided Fine Needle Aspiration (EUS-FNA) of Masses Located in the Lung Parenchyma: Diagnostic Yield and Safety

2007 ◽  
Vol 65 (5) ◽  
pp. AB102
Author(s):  
Enrique Vazquez-Sequeiros ◽  
Daniel Boixeda-Miquel ◽  
Jose Ramon Foruny-Olcina ◽  
Diego Juzgado-Lucas ◽  
Victor Moreira-Vicente ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Endoscopic Ultrasound ◽  
Fine Needle Aspiration ◽  
Diagnostic Yield ◽  
Lung Parenchyma ◽  
Needle Aspiration ◽  
Ultrasound Guided ◽  
Fine Needle

Su1326 Efficacy of Cell-Block Approach in Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle Aspiration

2016 ◽  
Vol 83 (5) ◽  
pp. AB353
Author(s):  
Elia Armellini ◽  
Marco Ballarè ◽  
Monica Leutner ◽  
Marco Orsello ◽  
Silvia Saettone ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Endoscopic Ultrasound ◽  
Fine Needle Aspiration ◽  
Needle Aspiration ◽  
Cell Block ◽  
Ultrasound Guided ◽  
Fine Needle ◽  
Block Approach

Endoscopic ultrasound guided fine-needle aspiration: What variables influence diagnostic yield?

2017 ◽  
Vol 46 (4) ◽  
pp. 293-298 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sambit K. Mohanty ◽  
Dinesh Pradhan ◽  
Shivani Sharma ◽  
Anurag Sharma ◽  
Niharika Patnaik ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Endoscopic Ultrasound ◽  
Fine Needle Aspiration ◽  
Diagnostic Yield ◽  
Needle Aspiration ◽  
Ultrasound Guided ◽  
Fine Needle
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document