5毫升和10毫升负压与湿抽吸技术用于EUS-FNA实体病变的比较:单中心随机对照试验。

IF 2.8 4区 医学 Q2 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY Journal of clinical gastroenterology Pub Date : 2025-01-01 DOI:10.1097/MCG.0000000000001982
Yuchun Zhu, Yang Su, Peng Yang, Jiaojun Li, Tai Yu, Yi Wang, Xi Zhou, Ming Zhao, Xiaobin Sun, Jing Shan
{"title":"5毫升和10毫升负压与湿抽吸技术用于EUS-FNA实体病变的比较:单中心随机对照试验。","authors":"Yuchun Zhu, Yang Su, Peng Yang, Jiaojun Li, Tai Yu, Yi Wang, Xi Zhou, Ming Zhao, Xiaobin Sun, Jing Shan","doi":"10.1097/MCG.0000000000001982","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and objectives: </strong>The negative pressure selectable for the wet-suction technique remains uncertain. The aim was to investigate the quality of sampling and diagnostic accuracy with solid lesions by 5 mL and 10 mL negative pressure with wet-suction techniques.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This is a single-center, crossover, randomized controlled trial conducted with a random sampling technique. In all, 160 patients consecutively undergoing EUS-FNA for solid lesions were randomized in a ratio of 1:1 into 2 groups, the 5 mL and 10 mL negative pressure wet-suction group. The main outcome was to compare the sample quality between the 2 groups. The secondary outcome was to compare the histologic and cytologic diagnostic accuracy of solid lesions.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Pancreatic (n=129) and nonpancreatic (n=27) lesions from 156 lesions were examined. The sample quality concluding cellularity, adequacy, integrity, and blood contamination were comparable between the 2 groups. However, in subgroup analysis, we found 19G FNA provided more integrity of specimen in 5 mL than in 10 mL group (100% vs. 82.9%, P =0.025). In contrast, this benefit was not noteworthy in the 22G FNA subgroup. And there was no statistically significant in histologic (87.82% vs. 87.18%, P =1.000) and cytologic (78.85% vs. 80.77%, P =0.778) accuracy between 5 mL and 10 mL groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>When using the wet-suction technique, 5 mL and 10 mL negative pressure offer equivalent sample quality and diagnostic accuracy. However, the 19G FNA can obtain better sample quality with 5 mL negative pressure than 10 mL negative pressure.</p>","PeriodicalId":15457,"journal":{"name":"Journal of clinical gastroenterology","volume":" ","pages":"97-103"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparation of 5 ml and 10 ml Negative Pressures with Wet-suction Techniques for EUS-FNA of Solid Lesions: A Single-center Randomized Controlled Trial.\",\"authors\":\"Yuchun Zhu, Yang Su, Peng Yang, Jiaojun Li, Tai Yu, Yi Wang, Xi Zhou, Ming Zhao, Xiaobin Sun, Jing Shan\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/MCG.0000000000001982\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background and objectives: </strong>The negative pressure selectable for the wet-suction technique remains uncertain. The aim was to investigate the quality of sampling and diagnostic accuracy with solid lesions by 5 mL and 10 mL negative pressure with wet-suction techniques.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This is a single-center, crossover, randomized controlled trial conducted with a random sampling technique. In all, 160 patients consecutively undergoing EUS-FNA for solid lesions were randomized in a ratio of 1:1 into 2 groups, the 5 mL and 10 mL negative pressure wet-suction group. The main outcome was to compare the sample quality between the 2 groups. The secondary outcome was to compare the histologic and cytologic diagnostic accuracy of solid lesions.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Pancreatic (n=129) and nonpancreatic (n=27) lesions from 156 lesions were examined. The sample quality concluding cellularity, adequacy, integrity, and blood contamination were comparable between the 2 groups. However, in subgroup analysis, we found 19G FNA provided more integrity of specimen in 5 mL than in 10 mL group (100% vs. 82.9%, P =0.025). In contrast, this benefit was not noteworthy in the 22G FNA subgroup. And there was no statistically significant in histologic (87.82% vs. 87.18%, P =1.000) and cytologic (78.85% vs. 80.77%, P =0.778) accuracy between 5 mL and 10 mL groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>When using the wet-suction technique, 5 mL and 10 mL negative pressure offer equivalent sample quality and diagnostic accuracy. However, the 19G FNA can obtain better sample quality with 5 mL negative pressure than 10 mL negative pressure.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15457,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of clinical gastroenterology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"97-103\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of clinical gastroenterology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/MCG.0000000000001982\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of clinical gastroenterology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/MCG.0000000000001982","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景和目的:湿抽吸技术可选择的负压仍不确定。目的是通过湿抽吸技术的 5 mL 和 10 mL 负压,研究实体病变的取样质量和诊断准确性:这是一项单中心、交叉、随机对照试验,采用随机取样技术。共有 160 名因实性病变连续接受 EUS-FNA 治疗的患者按 1:1 的比例随机分为两组,即 5 mL 和 10 mL 负压湿抽吸组。主要结果是比较两组的样本质量。次要结果是比较实体病变的组织学和细胞学诊断准确性:对 156 例病变中的胰腺(129 例)和非胰腺(27 例)病变进行了检查。两组样本的质量(包括细胞度、充分性、完整性和血液污染)相当。然而,在亚组分析中,我们发现 19G FNA 5 mL 组比 10 mL 组标本的完整性更高(100% 对 82.9%,P=0.025)。相比之下,22G FNA 亚组的这一优势并不显著。5毫升组和10毫升组的组织学准确率(87.82% vs. 87.18%,P=1.000)和细胞学准确率(78.85% vs. 80.77%,P=0.778)无统计学意义:结论:使用湿抽吸技术时,5 mL 和 10 mL 负压样本质量和诊断准确性相当。结论:使用湿抽吸技术时,5 mL 和 10 mL 负压可提供同等的样本质量和诊断准确性,但 5 mL 负压比 10 mL 负压可获得更好的样本质量。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Comparation of 5 ml and 10 ml Negative Pressures with Wet-suction Techniques for EUS-FNA of Solid Lesions: A Single-center Randomized Controlled Trial.

Background and objectives: The negative pressure selectable for the wet-suction technique remains uncertain. The aim was to investigate the quality of sampling and diagnostic accuracy with solid lesions by 5 mL and 10 mL negative pressure with wet-suction techniques.

Methods: This is a single-center, crossover, randomized controlled trial conducted with a random sampling technique. In all, 160 patients consecutively undergoing EUS-FNA for solid lesions were randomized in a ratio of 1:1 into 2 groups, the 5 mL and 10 mL negative pressure wet-suction group. The main outcome was to compare the sample quality between the 2 groups. The secondary outcome was to compare the histologic and cytologic diagnostic accuracy of solid lesions.

Results: Pancreatic (n=129) and nonpancreatic (n=27) lesions from 156 lesions were examined. The sample quality concluding cellularity, adequacy, integrity, and blood contamination were comparable between the 2 groups. However, in subgroup analysis, we found 19G FNA provided more integrity of specimen in 5 mL than in 10 mL group (100% vs. 82.9%, P =0.025). In contrast, this benefit was not noteworthy in the 22G FNA subgroup. And there was no statistically significant in histologic (87.82% vs. 87.18%, P =1.000) and cytologic (78.85% vs. 80.77%, P =0.778) accuracy between 5 mL and 10 mL groups.

Conclusion: When using the wet-suction technique, 5 mL and 10 mL negative pressure offer equivalent sample quality and diagnostic accuracy. However, the 19G FNA can obtain better sample quality with 5 mL negative pressure than 10 mL negative pressure.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of clinical gastroenterology
Journal of clinical gastroenterology 医学-胃肠肝病学
CiteScore
5.60
自引率
3.40%
发文量
339
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology gathers the world''s latest, most relevant clinical studies and reviews, case reports, and technical expertise in a single source. Regular features include cutting-edge, peer-reviewed articles and clinical reviews that put the latest research and development into the context of your practice. Also included are biographies, focused organ reviews, practice management, and therapeutic recommendations.
期刊最新文献
Association Between Different Types of Physical Activity and Hepatic Steatosis and Liver Fibrosis: A Cross-Sectional Study Based on NHANES. Efficacy of Endoscopic Therapy in Symptomatic Pancreatic Divisum: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Outcomes of ERCP in Patients With Cystic Fibrosis: A Nationwide Inpatient Assessment. Satisfaction With and Adherence to Off-Label Corticosteroids in Adolescents and Adults With Eosinophilic Esophagitis: Results of a Web-Based Survey in the United States. Do Patients With NASH-related Cirrhosis Have Better Overall Survival Compared With Other Etiologies of Cirrhosis? A Population-based Study.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1