Impact of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration on incidental pancreatic cysts. A prospective study

Abstract

EUS-FNA has a management impact in almost 72% of IPCs, with a major influence on the management strategy, either discharge rather than surgical resection or surgery rather than additional follow up.

Assessment of morbidity and mortality associated with endoscopic ultrasound‐guided fine‐needle aspiration for pancreatic cystic lesions: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

“…In 11 studies, multi‐needle passes were reported; the post‐EUS‐FNA morbidity in these studies (2.17%, 95% CI: 1.21–3.40%) was similar to that in the nine studies which reported single‐needle pass (3.45%, 95% CI: 1.41–6.33%). The other 20 studies had no detailed information on the number of needle passes for EUS‐FNA.…”

“…Of the 40 studies included, 11 studies with a total of 2127 patients were multicenter studies . The post‐EUS‐FNA adverse event morbidity in these studies (2.74%, 95% CI: 1.54–4.26%) was comparable to that in the 29 single‐center studies (2.63%, 95% CI: 1.58–3.95%).…”

“…An analysis of the potential risk factors for adverse events after EUS‐FNA is presented in Table . Pooled data from 19 prospective studies showed a post‐EUS‐FNA adverse event morbidity of 3.69% (95% CI: 2.22–5.54%), whereas in the 21 retrospective studies the post‐EUS‐FNA incidence of adverse events was 1.90% (95% CI: 1.05–2.98%). There was no significant difference between prospective and retrospective studies in this respect.…”

“…A total of 40 articles with a combined study population of 5124 patients who underwent EUS‐FNA of PCL were included in this analysis. Of these 40 articles, 19 were prospective studies, and 11 were multicenter studies (Fig ; Table ).…”

“…One study found no association of needle size with the risk of post‐EUS‐FNA adverse events. Previous studies have shown that needle malfunction was similar between the 22 G needle and the 25 G needle in solid pancreatic lesions .…”