Slow-pull and different conventional suction techniques in endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration of pancreatic solid lesions using 22-gauge needles

作     者：Jia-Ying Chen Qing-Yu Ding Yang Lv Wen Guo Fa-Chao Zhi Si-De Liu Tian-Ming Cheng 

作者机构：Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Gastroenterology Department of Gastroenterology Nanfang Hospital Southern Medical University Department of Gastroenterology Shenzhen Hospital of Southern Medical University Hui Qiao Medical Center Nanfang Hospital Southern Medical University 

出 版 物：《World Journal of Gastroenterology》 (世界胃肠病学杂志（英文版）)

年 卷 期：2016年第22卷第39期

页      面：8790-8797页

核心收录：

学科分类：1002[医学-临床医学] 100201[医学-内科学(含：心血管病、血液病、呼吸系病、消化系病、内分泌与代谢病、肾病、风湿病、传染病)] 10[医学] 

主　　题：Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration Pancreatic solid lesion Slow-pull technique Suction Negative pressure Cytology 

摘      要：AIM To evaluate the cytological diagnostic capacity and sample quality of the slow-pull technique and compare them with different suction *** From July 2010 to December 2015, 102 patients with pancreatic solid lesions who underwent endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration(EUS-FNA) with 22-gauge needles were retrospectively evaluated. EUS-FNA diagnosis was based on a cytological examination, and final diagnosis was based on a comprehensive standard of cytological diagnosis, surgical pathology and clinical or imaging follow-up. Cytological specimens were characterized for cellularity and blood contamination. The cytological diagnostic capacity and sample quality of the slow-pull technique and suction techniques with 5-m L/10-m L/20-m L syringes were *** Of all of the EUS-FNA procedures, the slow-pull technique and suction techniques with 5-m L/10-m L/20-m L syringes were used in 31, 19, 34 and 18 procedures, respectively. There were significant differences between these four suction techniques in terms of cytological diagnostic accuracy(90.3% vs 63.2% vs 58.8% vs 55.6%, P = 0.019), sensitivity(88.2% vs 41.7% vs 40.0% vs 36.4%, P = 0.009) and blood contamination(score ≥ 2 for 29.0% vs 52.6% vs 70.6% vs 72.2%, P = 0.003). The accuracy and sensitivity of the slow-pull technique were significantly higher than those of the suction techniques using 5-m L(P = 0.03, P = 0.014), 10-m L(P = 0.005; P = 0.006) and 20-mL syringes(P = 0.01, P = 0.01). Blood contamination was significantly lower in the slow-pull technique than in the suction techniques with 10-m L(P = 0.001) and 20-mL syringes(P = 0.007).CONCLUSION The slow-pull technique may increase the cytological diagnostic accuracy and sensitivity with slight blood contamination during EUS-FNA when using 22-gauge needles for solid pancreatic masses.