Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 2 de 2
Filter
Add more filters











Database
Main subject
Language
Publication year range
1.
Endosc Ultrasound ; 10(5): 319-324, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34259217

ABSTRACT

The optimal sampling techniques for EUS-FNA remain unclear and have not been standardized. To improve diagnostic accuracy, suction techniques for EUS-FNA have been developed and are widely used among endoscopists. The aim of this study was to compare wet-suction and dry-suction EUS-FNA techniques for sampling solid lesions. We performed a comprehensive literature search of major databases (from inception to June 2020) to identify prospective studies comparing wet-suction EUS-FNA and dry-suction EUS-FNA. Specimen adequacy, sample contamination, and histologic accuracy were assessed by pooling data using a random-effects model expressed in terms of odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Six studies including a total of 418 patients (365 wet suction vs. 377 dry suction) were included in our final analysis. The study included a total of 535 lesions (332 pancreatic lesions and 203 nonpancreatic lesions). The pooled odds of sample adequacy was 3.18 (CI: 1.82-5.54, P = 0.001) comparing wet- and dry-suction cohorts. The pooled odds of blood contamination was 1.18 (CI: 0.75-1.86, P = 0.1). The pooled rate for blood contamination was 58.33% (CI: 53.65%-62.90%) in the wet-suction cohort and 54.60% (CI 49.90%- 59.24%) in the dry-suction cohort (P = 0.256). The pooled odds of histological diagnosis was 3.68 (CI 0.82-16.42, P = 0.1). Very few adverse events were observed and did not have an impact on patient outcomes using either method. EUS-FNA using the wet-suction technique offers higher specimen quality through comparable rates of blood contamination and histological accuracy compared to dry-suction EUS-FNA.

2.
Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol ; 18(3): 739-740, 2020 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31228568

ABSTRACT

Placement of a pancreatic duct (PD) stent for prevention of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP)1-3 often necessitates a second procedure for stent removal, generally within 2-4 weeks to avoid stent occlusion or injury to the duct.4 These procedures are associated with increased costs and may result in procedure-related complications. Stents without internal anchoring flaps were developed to allow spontaneous migration into the duodenum,5 thus obviating the need for a repeat procedure. However, radiographic confirmation of a migrated stent can be challenging.6.


Subject(s)
Pancreatitis , Cholangiopancreatography, Endoscopic Retrograde/adverse effects , Duodenum , Humans , Pancreatic Ducts , Pancreatitis/etiology , Pancreatitis/prevention & control , Stents/adverse effects
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL