Gregory A Coté, Christine E Hovis, Cara Kohlmeier, Tarek Ammar, Abed Al-Lehibi, Riad R Azar, Steven A Edmundowicz, Daniel K Mullady, Hannah Krigman, Lourdes Ylagan, Michael Hull, Dayna S Early
{"title":"eus引导下的细针抽吸培训:从培训开始就参加有监督的、学员指导的FNA的安全性和诊断率。","authors":"Gregory A Coté, Christine E Hovis, Cara Kohlmeier, Tarek Ammar, Abed Al-Lehibi, Riad R Azar, Steven A Edmundowicz, Daniel K Mullady, Hannah Krigman, Lourdes Ylagan, Michael Hull, Dayna S Early","doi":"10.1155/2011/378540","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Background. The optimal time to initiate hands-on training in endoscopic ultrasound fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is unclear. We studied the feasibility of initiating EUS-FNA training concurrent with EUS training. Methods. Three supervised trainees were instructed on EUS-FNA technique and allowed hands-on exposure from the onset of training. The trainee and attending each performed passes in no particular order. During trainee FNA, the attending provided verbal instruction as needed but no hands-on assistance. A blinded cytopathologist assessed the adequacy (cellularity) and diagnostic yield of individual passes. Primary outcomes compared cellularity and diagnostic yield of attending versus fellow FNA passes. Results. We analyzed 305 FNA sites, including pancreas (51.2%), mediastinal/upper abdominal lymph node (LN) (28.5%) and others (20.3%). The average proportion of fellow passes with AC was similar to attending FNA-pancreas: 70.3 versus 68.8%; LN: 79.0 versus 81.7%; others 65.5 versus 68.7%; P > 0.05); these did not change significantly during the training period. Among cases with confirmed malignancy (n = 179), the sensitivity of EUS-FNA was 78.8% (68.4% fellow-only versus 69.6% attending only). There were no EUS-FNA complications. Conclusions. When initiated at the onset of EUS training, attending-supervised, trainee-directed FNA is safe and has comparable performance characteristics to attending FNA.</p>","PeriodicalId":11288,"journal":{"name":"Diagnostic and Therapeutic Endoscopy","volume":"2011 ","pages":"378540"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2011-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1155/2011/378540","citationCount":"25","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Training in EUS-Guided Fine Needle Aspiration: Safety and Diagnostic Yield of Attending Supervised, Trainee-Directed FNA from the Onset of Training.\",\"authors\":\"Gregory A Coté, Christine E Hovis, Cara Kohlmeier, Tarek Ammar, Abed Al-Lehibi, Riad R Azar, Steven A Edmundowicz, Daniel K Mullady, Hannah Krigman, Lourdes Ylagan, Michael Hull, Dayna S Early\",\"doi\":\"10.1155/2011/378540\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Background. The optimal time to initiate hands-on training in endoscopic ultrasound fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is unclear. We studied the feasibility of initiating EUS-FNA training concurrent with EUS training. Methods. Three supervised trainees were instructed on EUS-FNA technique and allowed hands-on exposure from the onset of training. The trainee and attending each performed passes in no particular order. During trainee FNA, the attending provided verbal instruction as needed but no hands-on assistance. A blinded cytopathologist assessed the adequacy (cellularity) and diagnostic yield of individual passes. Primary outcomes compared cellularity and diagnostic yield of attending versus fellow FNA passes. Results. We analyzed 305 FNA sites, including pancreas (51.2%), mediastinal/upper abdominal lymph node (LN) (28.5%) and others (20.3%). The average proportion of fellow passes with AC was similar to attending FNA-pancreas: 70.3 versus 68.8%; LN: 79.0 versus 81.7%; others 65.5 versus 68.7%; P > 0.05); these did not change significantly during the training period. Among cases with confirmed malignancy (n = 179), the sensitivity of EUS-FNA was 78.8% (68.4% fellow-only versus 69.6% attending only). There were no EUS-FNA complications. Conclusions. When initiated at the onset of EUS training, attending-supervised, trainee-directed FNA is safe and has comparable performance characteristics to attending FNA.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":11288,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Diagnostic and Therapeutic Endoscopy\",\"volume\":\"2011 \",\"pages\":\"378540\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2011-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1155/2011/378540\",\"citationCount\":\"25\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Diagnostic and Therapeutic Endoscopy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1155/2011/378540\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2011/11/24 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Diagnostic and Therapeutic Endoscopy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1155/2011/378540","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2011/11/24 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 25
摘要
背景。内镜超声细针抽吸(EUS-FNA)的最佳培训时间尚不清楚。我们研究了在EUS训练的同时启动EUS- fna训练的可行性。方法。三名受监督的受训者接受了EUS-FNA技术的指导,并允许从培训开始就亲自接触。学员和主治医生都没有特定的顺序。在受训FNA期间,主治医师根据需要提供口头指导,但不提供实际帮助。盲法细胞病理学家评估了单个通过的充分性(细胞数量)和诊断率。主要结果比较了出席者和其他FNA通过者的细胞数量和诊断率。结果。我们分析了305个FNA部位,包括胰腺(51.2%)、纵隔/上腹部淋巴结(LN)(28.5%)和其他部位(20.3%)。AC患者的平均比例与fna -胰腺患者相似:70.3 vs 68.8%;LN: 79.0 vs 81.7%;其他65.5%对68.7%;P > 0.05);这些在训练期间没有显著变化。在确诊为恶性肿瘤的病例中(n = 179), EUS-FNA的敏感性为78.8%(仅为68.4%,仅为69.6%)。无EUS-FNA并发症。结论。当在EUS培训开始时,由学员指导的、由学员监督的FNA是安全的,并且具有与参加FNA相当的性能特征。
Training in EUS-Guided Fine Needle Aspiration: Safety and Diagnostic Yield of Attending Supervised, Trainee-Directed FNA from the Onset of Training.
Background. The optimal time to initiate hands-on training in endoscopic ultrasound fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is unclear. We studied the feasibility of initiating EUS-FNA training concurrent with EUS training. Methods. Three supervised trainees were instructed on EUS-FNA technique and allowed hands-on exposure from the onset of training. The trainee and attending each performed passes in no particular order. During trainee FNA, the attending provided verbal instruction as needed but no hands-on assistance. A blinded cytopathologist assessed the adequacy (cellularity) and diagnostic yield of individual passes. Primary outcomes compared cellularity and diagnostic yield of attending versus fellow FNA passes. Results. We analyzed 305 FNA sites, including pancreas (51.2%), mediastinal/upper abdominal lymph node (LN) (28.5%) and others (20.3%). The average proportion of fellow passes with AC was similar to attending FNA-pancreas: 70.3 versus 68.8%; LN: 79.0 versus 81.7%; others 65.5 versus 68.7%; P > 0.05); these did not change significantly during the training period. Among cases with confirmed malignancy (n = 179), the sensitivity of EUS-FNA was 78.8% (68.4% fellow-only versus 69.6% attending only). There were no EUS-FNA complications. Conclusions. When initiated at the onset of EUS training, attending-supervised, trainee-directed FNA is safe and has comparable performance characteristics to attending FNA.