Novel combination of a 0.018-inch guidewire, dedicated thin dilator, and 22-gauge needle for EUS-guided hepaticogastrostomy.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Kanno Y
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7426615 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC9921985 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided transhepatic biliary drainage is usually performed with a 19-gauge fine-needle aspiration (FNA) needle and a 0.025-inch guidewire. The combination of a 22-gauge FNA needle and a 0.018-inch guidewire is reported to be effective as a rescue option when the bile duct diameter is small or technically challenging. Experts in EUS-guided transhepatic biliary drainage have reported that bile duct puncture with a 19-gauge FNA needle is possible in most cases, but is not easy to reproduce by endoscopists with less experience in EUS-guided transhepatic biliary drainage. We investigated the usefulness of EUS-guided transhepatic biliary drainage using a 22-gauge FNA needle and a 0.018-inch guidewire during the procedure's induction phase. Consecutive patients who underwent EUS-guided transhepatic biliary drainage at our institution from March 2021 to May 2023 were evaluated, and 37 were included. Biliary drainage was performed for malignant bile duct stricture in 36 patients and choledocholithiasis in one patient. The median target bile duct diameter was 4.5 mm (2.5-9.4). Biliary access, fistula dilation, and stent placement were successful in the 37 patients (100%). The median procedure time was 35 min (16-125). Adverse events occurred in four (10.8%) patients. EUS-guided transhepatic biliary drainage using a 22-gauge FNA needle and a 0.018-inch guidewire is a useful and promising option for endoscopists with limited experience in EUS-guided transhepatic biliary drainage in the procedure's induction phase.
| S-EPMC10564090 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC8248308 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background and objectivesSuccessful tract dilation is one of the most important steps to accomplish EUS-guided drainage. Although mechanical dilation is safer than electrocautery dilation, no dedicated mechanical dilator (MD) is currently available. Thus, we developed a new ultra-tapered MD for EUS-guided drainage. This study aimed to evaluate the safety and usefulness of this novel MD.Patients and methodsConsecutive patients who underwent EUS-guided hepaticogastrostomy (EUS-HGS) or EUS-guided pancreatic duct drainage (EUS-PD) at two centers were included in the study. Dilation of the needle tract was initially performed with a diathermic sheath or the ultra-tapered MD. Technical success and adverse events were assessed.ResultsSixty-four patients (mean age = 68.9 ± 13.8 years, 35 men) underwent EUS-HGS (49 patients) and EUS-PD (15 patients). Thirty-three patients were included in the cautery dilator (CD) group and 31 in the ultra-tapered MD group. Initial dilation of the puncture site was achieved in 95.3% (61/64): 97% (32/33) of the patients in the CD group and 93.3% (29/31) of the patients in the MD group (P < 0.05). Adverse events were observed in 14 patients: abdominal pain in 8 patients and bleeding in 6 patients at the puncture site. All bleedings occurred in the CD group and there was no patient in whom bleeding occurred after EUS intervention in the MD group (P = 0.04).ConclusionThe novel ultra-tapered MD designed for interventional EUS appears to be safe and useful as it reduced postprocedure bleeding with a high technical success rate compared with the conventional electrocautery dilator.
| S-EPMC6289009 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background and study aims ?EUS-FNA has suboptimal accuracy in diagnosing gastrointestinal subepithelial tumors (SETs). EUS-guided 22-gauge fine needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) and single-incision with needle knife (SINK) were proposed to increase accuracy of diagnosis. This study aimed to prospectively compare the diagnostic accuracy and safety of EUS-FNB with SINK in patients with upper gastrointestinal SETs. Patients and methods ?All adult patients referred for EUS evaluation of upper gastrointestinal SETs ??15?mm in size were eligible for inclusion. Patients were randomized to undergo EUS-FNB or SINK. Lesions were sampled with a 22-gauge reverse beveled core needle in the EUS-FNB group and by a conventional needle-knife sphincterotome and biopsy forceps in the SINK group.?Patients were blinded to the technique used. The primary outcome was diagnostic accuracy. Secondary outcomes included adverse events, histological yield and procedure duration. Study enrollment was terminated early due to poor recruitment. Results ?A total of 56 patients (31 male (55.37?%); mean age, 67.41?±?12.70 years) were randomized to either EUS-FNB (n?=?26) or SINK (n?=?30). Technical success was 96.15?% and 96.66?%, respectively. The majority of lesions were gastrointestinal stromal tumors (51.78?%). No significant difference was found between EUS-FNB and SINK in terms of diagnostic accuracy for a malignant or benign disease (76?% vs. 89.28?%, respectively; P ?=?0.278). The rate of adverse events (none severe) was also comparable (7.69?% vs. 10?%, respectively; P?=? 1.0) including two abdominal pain episodes in the EUS-FNB group compared to two delayed bleeding (one requiring hospitalization and radiologic embolization) and 1 abdominal pain in the SINK group. Conclusion ?EUS-FNB and SINK are equally effective techniques for upper gastrointestinal SETs sampling. SINK can be associated with mild to moderate delayed bleeding.
| S-EPMC7035036 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AimTo compare the aspiration needle (AN) and core biopsy needle (PC) in endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) of abdominal masses.MethodsConsecutive patients referred for EUS-FNA were included in this prospective single-center trial. Each patient underwent a puncture of the lesion with both standard 22-gauge (G) AN (Echo Tip Ultra; Cook Medical, Bloomington, Indiana, United States) and the novel 22G PC (EchoTip ProCore; Cook Medical, Bloomington, Indiana, United States) in a randomized fashion; histology was attempted in the PC group only. The main study endpoint was the overall diagnostic accuracy, including the contribution of histology to the final diagnosis. Secondary outcome measures included material adequacy, number of needle passes, and complications.ResultsFifty six consecutive patients (29 men; mean age 68 years) with pancreatic lesions (n = 38), lymphadenopathy (n = 13), submucosal tumors (n = 4), or others lesions (n = 1) underwent EUS-FNA using both of the needles in a randomized order. AN and PC reached similar overall results for diagnostic accuracy (AN: 88.9 vs PC: 96.1, P = 0.25), specimen adequacy (AN: 96.4% vs PC: 91.1%, P = 0.38), mean number of passes (AN: 1.5 vs PC: 1.7, P = 0.14), mean cellularity score (AN: 1.7 vs PC: 1.1, P = 0.058), and complications (none). A diagnosis on the basis of histology was achieved in the PC group in 36 (64.3%) patients, and in 2 of those as the sole modality. In patients with available histology the mean cellularity score was higher for AN (AN: 1.7 vs PC: 1.0, P = 0.034); no other differences were of statistical significance.ConclusionBoth needles achieved high overall diagnostic yields and similar performance characteristics for cytological diagnosis; histological analysis was only possible in 2/3 of cases with the new needle.
| S-EPMC5075557 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) has been used for detecting pancreatic cancer. We aimed to compare the diagnostic yield of both 22-gauge and 25-gauge EUS-FNA for the detection of pancreatic cancer. MATERIAL AND METHODS We searched the electronic databases including PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Scopus, and Cochrane Library up to June 13, 2017. Two reviewers independently screened studies and extracted data. RESULTS We analyzed data from 1824 patients from 16 included studies. The estimated pooled data for the 22-gauge needles reported sensitivity was 0.89 (0.83-0.93), specificity was 1.00 (0.74-1.00), positive LR was 485.28 (2.55-92 000) and negative LR was 0.11 (0.07-0.17). Results for the 25-gauge needles showed the pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative LR was 0.90 (0.86-0.93), 0.99 (0.89-1.00), 59.53 (7.99-443.66), and 0.10 (0.07-0.14), respectively. The 25-gauge needle had significantly higher pooled sensitivity than the 22-gauge needle (0.90 vs. 0.87, χ²=5.26, P=0.02) while there was no difference in the pooled specificity (0.96 vs. 0.98, χ²=2.12, P=0.15). The quality of most studies was assessed favorable using QUADAS-2 (quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies-2). CONCLUSIONS Our findings revealed that the 25-gauge EUS-FNA used for pancreatic lesions could have a higher diagnostic yield than using 22-gauge EUS-FNA. Nevertheless, well-designed prospective studies recruiting more patients are needed.
| S-EPMC6257123 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundTo overcome limitations of cytology, biopsy needles have been developed to procure histologic samples during EUS.ObjectiveTo compare 22-gauge (G) FNA and 22G biopsy needles (FNB) for EUS-guided sampling of solid pancreatic masses.DesignRandomized trial.SettingTertiary-care medical center.PatientsThis study involved 56 patients with solid pancreatic masses.InterventionSampling of pancreatic masses by using 22G FNA or 22G FNB devices.Main outcome measurementsCompare the median number of passes required to establish the diagnosis, diagnostic sufficiency, technical performance, complication rates, procurement of the histologic core, and quality of the histologic specimen.ResultsA total of 28 patients were randomized to the FNA group and 28 to the FNB group. There was no significant difference in median number of passes required to establish the diagnosis (1 [interquartile range 1-2.5] vs 1 [interquartile range 1-1]; P = .21), rates of diagnostic sufficiency (100% vs 89.3%; P = .24), technical failure (0 vs 3.6%; P = 1.0), or complications (3.6% for both) between FNA and FNB needles, respectively. Patients in whom diagnosis was established in passes 1, 2, and 3 were 64.3% versus 67.9%, 10.7% versus 17.9%, and 25% versus 3.6%, respectively, for FNA and FNB cohorts. There was no significant difference in procurement of the histologic core (100% vs 83.3%; P = .26) or the presence of diagnostic histologic specimens (66.7% vs 80%; P = .66) between FNA and FNB cohorts, respectively.LimitationsOnly pancreatic masses were evaluated.ConclusionDiagnostic sufficiency, technical performance, and safety profiles of FNA and FNB needles are comparable. There was no significant difference in yield or quality of the histologic core between the 2 needle types.
| S-EPMC4148209 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundInadvertent intravascular injection has been suggested as the most probable mechanism behind serious neurological complications during transforaminal epidural steroid injections. Authors believe a smaller gauge needle may lead to less intravascular uptake and less pain. Theoretically, there is less chance for a smaller gauge needle to encounter a blood vessel during an injection compared to a larger gauge needle. Studies have also shown smaller gauge needle to cause less pain. The aim of the study was to quantify the difference between a 22-gauge needle and 25-gauge needle during lumbosacral transforaminal epidural steroid injection in regards to intravascular uptake and pain perception.MethodsThis was a prospective single blind randomized clinical trial performed at outpatient spine practice locations of two academic institutions. One hundred sixty-two consecutive patients undergoing lumbosacral transforaminal epidural injections from February 2018 to June 2019 were recruited and randomized to each arm of the study - 84 patients were randomized to the 22-gauge needle arm and 78 patients to 25-gauge arm. Each transforaminal injection level was considered a separate incidence, hence total number of incidence was 249 (136 in 22-gauge arm and 113 in 25-gauge arm). The primary outcome measure was intravascular uptake during live fluoroscopy and/or blood aspiration. The secondary outcome measure was patient reported pain during the procedure on the numerical rating scale.ResultsFisher exact test was used to detect differences between 2 groups in regards to intravascular uptake and paired t-tests were used to detect differences in pain scores. The incidence of intravascular uptake for a 22-gauge needle was 5.9% (95% confidence interval: 1.9 to 9.8%) and for a 25-gauge needle, 7.1% (95% confidence interval: 2.4 to 11.8%) [p = 0.701]. Average numerical rating scale scores during the initial needle entry for 22-gauge and 25-gauge needle was 3.46 (95% confidence interval: 2.94 to 3.98) and 3.13 (95% confidence interval: 2.57 to 3.69) respectively [p = 0.375].ConclusionsThe study showed no statistically significant difference in intravascular uptake or pain perception between a 22-gauge needle and 25-gauge needle during lumbosacral transforaminal epidural steroid injections.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT04350307. Registered 4/17/2020. (Retrospectively registered).
| S-EPMC7469311 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Endoscopic ultrasonography-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) may facilitate tissue acquisition for a definitive diagnosis of gastrointestinal subepithelial tumors (SETs). This study aimed to determine the diagnostic yield of EUS-FNB using a novel 20-gauge ProCore needle with a coiled sheath in tissue sampling of gastrointestinal SETs. METHODS:Between July 2016 and February 2017, 39 patients with gastrointestinal SETs were prospectively recruited from six university hospitals in Korea. Hypoechoic SETs ?2 cm in size and originating from the submucosal and/or muscularis propria layer under EUS were eligible. This study was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02884154). RESULTS:A total of 36 patients were included in the final analyses. EUS-FNB was diagnostic in 88.9% of SETs. Tissue adequacy was judged as optimal in 97.2% of FNB specimens according to on-site visual evaluation by endosonographers, and in 88.9% of specimens according to pathologists. A macroscopically optimal core sample was obtained with two needle passes in 94.4% of cases. Technical failure rate was encountered in two cases (5.6%) after two needle passes. There were two cases (5.6%) of bleeding, which was managed endoscopically. CONCLUSIONS:EUS-FNB using a 20-gauge ProCore needle is a technically feasible and effective modality for histopathologic diagnosis of gastrointestinal SETs, providing adequate core samples with fewer needle passes; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02884154.
| S-EPMC6194594 | biostudies-literature