• Users Online:168
  • Home
  • Print this page
  • Email this page
Home About us Editorial board Search Ahead of print Current issue Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 
 
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Ahead of Print

Comparison between 22G aspiration and 22G biopsy needles for EUS-guided sampling of pancreatic lesions: A meta-analysis


1 Department of Medical Sciences, Gastroenterology Unit, University of Foggia, Foggia, Italy
2 Department of Community Medicine, Dr Rajendra Prasad Government Medical College, Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, India
3 Department of Public Health, Sardar Patel Institute Campus, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, India

Correspondence Address:
Antonio Facciorusso,
Department of Medical Sciences, Gastroenterology Unit, University of Foggia, AOU Ospedali Riuniti, Viale Pinto, 1, Foggia 71100, Italy
Italy
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/eus.eus_4_19

PMID: 31031330

Background and Objective: Robust data in favor of clear superiority of 22G fine-needle biopsy (FNB) over 22G FNA for an echoendoscopic-guided sampling of pancreatic masses are lacking. The objective of this study is to compare the diagnostic outcomes and sample adequacy of these two needles. Materials and Methods: Computerized bibliographic search on the main databases was performed and restricted to only randomized controlled trials. Summary estimates were expressed regarding risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval. Results: A total of 11 trials with 833 patients were analyzed. The two needles resulted comparable in terms of diagnostic accuracy (RR 1.02, 0.97–1.08; P = 0.46), sample adequacy (RR 1.01, 0.96–1.06; P = 0.61), and histological core procurement (RR 1.01, 0.89–1.15; P = 0.86). Pooled sensitivity in the diagnosis of pancreatic cancer was 93.1% (87.9%–98.4%) and 90.4% (86.3%–94.5%) with biopsy and aspirate, respectively, whereas specificity for detecting pancreatic cancer was 100% with both needles. Analysis of the number of needle passes showed a nonsignificantly positive trend in favor of FNB (mean difference: −0.32, −0.66–0.02; P = 0.07). Conclusion: Our meta-analysis stands for a nonsuperiority of 22G FNB over 22G FNA; hence, no definitive recommendations on the use of a particular device can be made.


Print this article
Search
 Back
 
  Search Pubmed for
 
    -  Facciorusso A
    -  Bajwa HS
    -  Menon K
    -  Buccino VR
    -  Muscatiello N
 Citation Manager
 Article Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed1005    
    PDF Downloaded45    
    Cited by others 2    

Recommend this journal