Suppr超能文献

19号和22号针内镜超声引导下细针穿刺对实性胰腺病变的比较

Comparison of Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle Aspiration with 19-Gauge and 22-Gauge Needles for Solid Pancreatic Lesions.

作者信息

Li Changjuan, Mi Jianwei, Gao Fulai, Zhu Xinying, Su Miao, Xie Xiaoli, Zhao Dongqiang

机构信息

Department of Gastroenterology, The Second Hospital of Hebei Medical University, Shijiazhuang, 050000, Hebei Province, People's Republic of China.

Department of Gastroenterology, The First Hospital of Handan City, Handan, 056002, Hebei Province, People's Republic of China.

出版信息

Int J Gen Med. 2021 Dec 30;14:10439-10446. doi: 10.2147/IJGM.S342525. eCollection 2021.

Abstract

PURPOSE

We aimed to compare the histological and/or cytological diagnostic outcomes of EUS-FNA using 19G and 22G needles for solid pancreatic lesions and to evaluate the feasibility and safety of 19G needle.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Data from patients with solid pancreatic lesions, who underwent EUS-FNA, were retrospectively retrieved from a single tertiary center from June 2017 to January 2021. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of diagnosis, sample adequacy, number and time of punctures, and adverse events, were compared between the 19G and 22G groups. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were used to identify optimal factors for a correct histological diagnosis.

RESULTS

A total of 186 patients (19G group, n = 90; 22G group, n = 96) were analyzed in the study. The higher sensitivity and accuracy were observed in 19G group than those in the 22G group both in histological evaluation (89.3% vs 76%, p = 0.031; 91.1% vs 79.2%, p = 0.023; respectively) and in the combined histological and cytological evaluations (93.3% vs 81.3%, p = 0.027; 94.4% vs 84.3%, p = 0.027, respectively). However, there were no significant differences in specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV). The number of needle passes and the puncture time were significantly lower in the 19G group than that in the 22G group (1.66 ± 0.07 vs 2.25 ± 0.08, p < 0.001; 125.4 ± 4.93s vs 169.0 ± 5.6s p < 0.001; respectively). Only 2 cases were failed in the 19G group and no serious complications occurred. Univariate and multivariate logistic analyses suggested that CA199 levels and needle types are related to the accuracy of the EUS-FNA histological diagnosis.

CONCLUSION

EUS-FNA using a 19G needle is effective and safe for solid pancreatic lesions. Compared with the 22G needle, EUS-FNA with a 19G needle can obtain a better histological diagnostic accuracy of solid pancreatic lesions, and with fewer needle passes and in a shorter time.

摘要

目的

我们旨在比较使用19G和22G穿刺针进行超声内镜引导下细针穿刺抽吸术(EUS-FNA)对实性胰腺病变的组织学和/或细胞学诊断结果,并评估19G穿刺针的可行性和安全性。

患者和方法

回顾性收集2017年6月至2021年1月在单个三级中心接受EUS-FNA的实性胰腺病变患者的数据。比较19G组和22G组之间的诊断敏感性、特异性和准确性、样本充足率、穿刺次数和时间以及不良事件。采用单因素和多因素逻辑回归分析确定正确组织学诊断的最佳因素。

结果

本研究共分析了186例患者(19G组90例;22G组96例)。在组织学评估中(分别为89.3%对76%,p = 0.031;91.1%对79.2%,p = 0.023)以及在组织学和细胞学联合评估中(分别为93.3%对81.3%,p = 0.027;94.4%对84.3%,p = 0.027),19G组的敏感性和准确性均高于22G组。然而,特异性、阳性预测值(PPV)和阴性预测值(NPV)无显著差异。19G组的穿刺次数和穿刺时间显著低于22G组(分别为1.66±0.07对2.25±0.08,p < 0.001;125.4±4.93秒对169.0±5.6秒,p < 0.001)。19G组仅2例穿刺失败,未发生严重并发症。单因素和多因素逻辑分析表明,CA199水平和穿刺针类型与EUS-FNA组织学诊断的准确性相关。

结论

对于实性胰腺病变,使用19G穿刺针进行EUS-FNA是有效且安全的。与22G穿刺针相比,使用19G穿刺针进行EUS-FNA对实性胰腺病变可获得更好的组织学诊断准确性,且穿刺次数更少、时间更短。

相似文献

1
Comparison of Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle Aspiration with 19-Gauge and 22-Gauge Needles for Solid Pancreatic Lesions.
Int J Gen Med. 2021 Dec 30;14:10439-10446. doi: 10.2147/IJGM.S342525. eCollection 2021.
4
The difference in histological yield between 19G EUS-FNA and EUS-fine-needle biopsy needles.
Endosc Ultrasound. 2019 Jul-Aug;8(4):255-260. doi: 10.4103/eus.eus_12_19.
7
22-Gauge biopsy needles have a better histological diagnostic yield in the discrimination of specific pancreatic solid neoplasms.
Scand J Gastroenterol. 2019 Jan;54(1):101-107. doi: 10.1080/00365521.2018.1564362. Epub 2019 Feb 7.

本文引用的文献

2
Pathologic interpretation of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration cytology/biopsy for pancreatic lesions.
J Pathol Transl Med. 2020 Sep;54(5):367-377. doi: 10.4132/jptm.2020.07.21. Epub 2020 Aug 31.
4
Evaluation of Pancreatic Lesions With Endoscopic Ultrasound and Fine Needle Aspiration.
Surg Innov. 2020 Oct;27(5):431-438. doi: 10.1177/1553350620925321. Epub 2020 May 30.
7
Rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) with EUS-FNA: The ROSE looks beautiful.
Endosc Ultrasound. 2019 Sep-Oct;8(5):283-287. doi: 10.4103/eus.eus_65_19.
8
Comparative accuracy of needle sizes and designs for EUS tissue sampling of solid pancreatic masses: a network meta-analysis.
Gastrointest Endosc. 2019 Dec;90(6):893-903.e7. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2019.07.009. Epub 2019 Jul 13.
9
The difference in histological yield between 19G EUS-FNA and EUS-fine-needle biopsy needles.
Endosc Ultrasound. 2019 Jul-Aug;8(4):255-260. doi: 10.4103/eus.eus_12_19.
10
Endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition: Can fork and crown cut the tissue?
Dig Endosc. 2019 Mar;31(2):146-147. doi: 10.1111/den.13322. Epub 2019 Jan 24.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验