• Users Online:573
  • 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 
Year : 2014  |  Volume : 3  |  Issue : 3  |  Page : 174-178

Comparison of two techniques for endoscopic ultrasonography fine-needle aspiration in solid pancreatic mass

Gastroenterology and Liver Diseases Research Center, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

Correspondence Address:
Amir Alizadeh
Gastroenterology and Liver Diseases Research Center, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/2303-9027.138790

Rights and Permissions

Background: Endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) is a newly imagine procedure for assessment and therapeutic in option. The aims of this study are comparison two techniques about EUS-fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA), including successful tissue sampling, complication, procedure time, and safety. Materials and Methods: A total of 100 patients with pancreatic solid masses were in the study, 50 patients underwent EUS-FNA with negative pressure as Group 1 and 50 patients underwent EUS-FNA without negative pressure and stylet as Group 2 over a 36 months period. Results: The study period was from March 2011 to January 2014. In total case, the male-to-female ratio was 1.27 with a mean age of 61.7 ± 1.3 years. The involvement of different regions of the pancreas, pancreatic head had the most frequent (69%) after that uncinate (12%), body (11%) and tail (8%). In 100 pancreatic EUS-FNA samples, 48% were interpreted as malignant on pathology evaluation, 15% as suspicious for malignancy, 27% as benign processes and 10% inadequate specimen. There were no significant differences between the adequacy of sample cells in two techniques (P < 0.148). Conclusion: The EUS-FNA without negative pressure and stylet technique was related with less contamination by blood and raise the diagnostic yield. We recommend further studies for better evaluation of our study with higher the cases because clinically the low the inadequate samples (6% vs. 14%) and less contamination with blood (20% vs. 50%) in the second group (P < 0.002).

Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded297    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 11    

Recommend this journal