Fine-needle aspiration biopsy for cytopathologic analysis: utility of syringe handles, automated guns, and the nonsuction method.

Abstract

The performances of seven techniques and devices used with 22-gauge needles to obtain biopsy specimens for cytologic analysis were compared by means of single-blinded evaluation with an objective, previously published grading scheme. A total of 420 specimens were obtained from 10 fresh human cadavers (42 specimens per cadaver), including 30 hepatic, 20 renal, and 10 pancreatic specimens per technique or device. No statistical differences existed in the liver, kidney, or pancreas or in the combined data in the performance of the aspirator gun, syringe holders, vacuum needle, and end-cut gun versus the manual aspiration biopsy technique performed with a 22-gauge Chiba needle. However, nonaspiration, fine-needle capillary biopsy (FNCB) performed statistically significantly worse than any other technique or device in the kidney and pancreas and in comparison with the overall combined data. In the liver, no statistically significant difference existed in the overall performance of FNCB versus conventional aspiration biopsy, but the amount of cellular material obtained with FNCB was statistically significantly less.

Multiple fine-needle biopsies using a coaxial technique: Efficacy and a comparison of three methods

“…The data in this study, however, confirm our previous blinded evaluation of the capillary vs aspiration technique [18]. As in our prior study, the capillary technique performed worse statistically than either the vacuum gun or the aspiration technique, especially with respect to the amount of cellular material obtained, and in the kidney, retention of appropriate architecture.…”

Ultrasound-guided percutaneous fine-needle aspiration of solid pancreatic neoplasms: 10-year experience with more than 2,000 cases and a review of the literature

“…Previous studies have reported the superiority of aspiration needles, especially for lesions with low cellular density [14,15]. With regard to pancreatic masses specifically, Hopper et al [16] reported a clearly poorer performance of the capillary method sampling with regard to the amount of cellular material obtained, degree of cellular trauma, and overall diagnostic value. There were differences between the centres involved in this study with regard to the modality of re-evaluation in patients with non-diagnostic samples: excluding 42 patients who were lost to follow-up after non-diagnostic samples were obtained (26 in centre 1 and 16 in centre 2), most patients in centre 1 were referred to surgery (12/22) or EUS-FNA (5/22), while in centre 2 US-FNA was repeated in all cases.…”

Evaluation of Fine Needle Aspiration vs. Fine Needle Capillary Sampling on Specimen Quality and Diagnostic Accuracy in Endoscopic Ultrasound–Guided Biopsy

“…Some studies have suggested that FNC may be better in the biopsy of lymph nodes, 7,8 whereas FNA may yield better specimens in pancreatic masses and sclerotic lesions. 9 However, these data are limited.…”