Related Experiment Videos
Novel fork-tip needles versus standard needles for EUS-guided tissue acquisition from solid masses of the upper GI
Manol Jovani1, Wasif M Abidi2, Linda S Lee2
1a Clinical and Translational Epidemiology Unit, Division of Gastroenterology , Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School , Boston , MA , USA.
Background:
There are very few available data on the novel SharkCore™ needles for EUS-FNB.
Aim:
Comparison of the performance of the SharkCore™ needles with the standard EUS-FNA needles for the diagnosis of solid upper GI masses.
Patients And Methods:
Single-center, retrospective cohort study in an academic tertiary referral hospital. Patients were matched 1:1 for the site of the lesion and the presence or absence of rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE).
Results:
A total of 102 patients were included. There was no statistically significant difference in the mean number of passes (3.3 ± 1.3 versus 3.4 ± 1.5; p = .89). Similar results were observed at the subgroup with ROSE (4.3 ± 1.3 versus 3.7 ± 1.5; p = .26). More histological specimens were obtained with the SharkCore™ needles compared to standard needles (59 versus 5%; p < .001). Diagnostic test characteristics were not significantly different (sensitivity: 91.5 versus 85.7; specificity: 100 versus 100%; accuracy: 92.2 versus 85.4% for SharkCore™ versus standard needles, p > .05 in all cases). At multivariable analysis, there was no statistically significant difference in the mean number of passes in all patients (p = .23) and in the ROSE subgroup (p = .66). However, the SharkCore™ needle obtained significantly more histological material than the standard needle (odds ratio 66; 95% confidence interval: 11.8, 375.8, p < .001). There was no significant difference in complication rates (p = .5).
Limitations:
Retrospective study, single-center.
Conclusion:
The SharkCore needles were similar to standard FNA needles in terms of the number of passes to reach diagnosis, but obtained significantly more histological specimen.