Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Gastrointest Endosc. 2016 Sep;84(3):424-433.e2. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2016.01.068. Epub 2016 Feb 10.

EUS Needle Identification Comparison and Evaluation study (with videos).

Author information

1
Division of Digestive Diseases, Department of Medicine, University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson, Mississippi, USA.
2
GastroUnit, Copenhagen University Hospital Herlev, Copenhagen, Denmark.
3
GastroUnit, Copenhagen University Hospital Herlev, Copenhagen, Denmark; Department of Gastroenterology, Research Center of Gastroenterology and Hepatology Craiova, Craiova, Romania.
4
Center of Biostatistics & Bioinformatics, University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson, Mississippi, USA.
5
Department of Gastroenterology, Research Center of Gastroenterology and Hepatology Craiova, Craiova, Romania.
6
Medi-Globe GmbH, Rosenheim, Germany.
7
Caritas Krankenhaus Bad Mergentheim, Germany.
8
Krankenhaus Märkisch Oderland GmbH, Germany.
9
Helios Hospital Meiningen, Meiningen, Germany.
10
University Hospital of Hamburg-Eppendorf, Germany.
11
Vivantes Klinikum im Friedrichshain, Berlin, Germany.
12
University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
13
Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, Netherlands.
14
Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway.
15
Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.
16
Université Catholique de Louvain, Brussels, Belgium.
17
University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Bucharest, Romania.
18
University Hospital Ramon y Cajal, Madrid, Spain.
19
Catholic University, Rome, Italy.
20
Maggiore Hospital, Crema, Italy.
21
Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences, University of Bologna/Hospital of Imola, Italy.
22
Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel.
23
Institute of Digestive and Hepatobiliary Sciences, Gurgaon, India.
24
All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India.
25
Jaswant Rai Speciality Hospital, Uttar Pradersh, India.
26
Cancer Institute of Sao Paulo University, Sao Paulo, Brazil.
27
Centre Hospitalier de l'Universite de Montreal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
28
Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
29
Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
30
Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, USA.
31
University of Virginia Health System, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Charlottesville, Virginia, USA.
32
Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA.
33
Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.
34
Wake Forest University Hospital, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, USA.
35
University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.
36
Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, USA.
37
University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
38
University of Colorado Hospital, Denver, Colorado, USA.
39
University of Southern California Keck School of Medicine, California, USA.
40
University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California, USA.
41
Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
42
University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA.
43
Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.
44
Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, Florida, USA.
45
Mayo Clinic Florida, Jacksonville, Florida, USA.
46
National Centre for Ultrasound in Gastroenterology, Haukeland University Hospital, and Department of Clinical Medicine, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway.
47
GB Rossi University Hospital, Verona, Italy.
48
Center for Radiology Esslinger, Vienna, Austria.
49
Paula Stradina Clinical University Hospital, Riga, Latvia.
50
3rd Medical Department, University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Institute for Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Cluj-Napoca, Romania.
51
King's College Hospital, London, UK.
52
Derriford Hospital, Plymouth, UK.
53
University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson, Mississippi, USA.
54
University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas, USA.

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND AIMS:

EUS-guided FNA or biopsy sampling is widely practiced. Optimal sonographic visualization of the needle is critical for image-guided interventions. Of the several commercially available needles, bench-top testing and direct comparison of these needles have not been done to reveal their inherent echogenicity. The aims are to provide bench-top data that can be used to guide clinical applications and to promote future device research and development.

METHODS:

Descriptive bench-top testing and comparison of 8 commonly used EUS-FNA needles (all size 22 gauge): SonoTip Pro Control (Medi-Globe); Expect Slimline (Boston Scientific); EchoTip, EchoTip Ultra, EchoTip ProCore High Definition (Cook Medical); ClearView (Conmed); EZ Shot 2 (Olympus); and BNX (Beacon Endoscopic), and 2 new prototype needles, SonoCoat (Medi-Globe), coated by echogenic polymers made by Encapson. Blinded evaluation of standardized and unedited videos by 43 EUS endoscopists and 17 radiologists specialized in GI US examination who were unfamiliar with EUS needle devices.

RESULTS:

There was no significant difference in the ratings and rankings of these needles between endosonographers and radiologists. Overall, 1 prototype needle was rated as the best, ranking 10% to 40% higher than all other needles (P < .01). Among the commercially available needles, the EchoTip Ultra needle and the ClearView needle were top choices. The EZ Shot 2 needle was ranked statistically lower than other needles (30%-75% worse, P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS:

All FNA needles have their inherent and different echogenicities, and these differences are similarly recognized by EUS endoscopists and radiologists. Needles with polymeric coating from the entire shaft to the needle tip may offer better echogenicity.

PMID:
26873530
PMCID:
PMC5570521
DOI:
10.1016/j.gie.2016.01.068
[Indexed for MEDLINE]
Free PMC Article

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Elsevier Science Icon for PubMed Central
Loading ...
Support Center