A prospective comparison of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration results obtained in the same lesion, with and without the needle stylet

Abstract

CorrectionSahai AV, Paquin SC, Gariépy G et al. A prospective comparison of endoscopic ultrasound guided fine needle aspiration results obtained in the same lesion, with and without the needle stylet. Endoscopy 2010; 42: 900 -903In results, primary outcome, paragraph 2, the last sentence The first pass was S+ in 25/46 (54 % [95 % CI 39 -69]) and S-in 21/46 (46 % [95 % CI 31 -61]) should read:Due to an unrecognized limitation in the pass assignment sequence, all the cases retained for analysis were S+ first. CorrectionSahai AV et al. EUS-FNA with and without needle stylet … Endoscopy 2011; 43: 168 Downloaded by: Rutgers University. Copyrighted material.

A Comparative Study of Endoscopic Ultrasound Guided Fine Needle Aspiration With and Without a Stylet

“…From a total of 309 needle passes (mean 2.3 passes/lesion), there were 118 (38%) passes in the stylet arm and 191 (62%) in the without stylet group. In this study, the use of stylet for EUS-FNA was associated with a reduced specimen adequacy (75% vs. 87%, P = 0.013) and more bloody specimen (75% vs. 52%, P \ 0.0001) [25]. Similarly, another retrospective study compared the yield and number of passes required to obtain adequate samples among cases with and without stylet in 47 consecutive patients and 54 sites (pancreas 55%, lymph nodes 14%, liver/biliary 13%, and gastric or others 17%) with the predominant use of 25-gauge needles.…”

Diagnostic yield of malignancy during EUS-guided FNA of solid lesions with and without a stylet: a prospective, single blind, randomized, controlled trial

“…Most importantly, recent data suggest that the use of a stylet does not confer any advantage with regard to the diagnostic yield of malignancy or to the quality of specimens obtained. 12,13,[21][22][23] In this prospective, single-blind, randomized, controlled trial, the diagnostic yield of malignancy was compared among specimens obtained with and without a stylet during EUS-FNA. In addition, important cytopathological parameters such as adequacy, amount of blood, and cellularity were compared by using standardized criteria by cytopathologists blinded to the stylet arm.…”

“…Level I evidence comparing the 2 techniques is limited, with observational studies demonstrating that the use of a stylet during EUS-FNA confers no added advantage with regard to the diagnostic yield of malignancy or adequacy of the specimen. 12,13,[21][22][23] A recent randomized, controlled trial comparing the 2 techniques showed no difference in the diagnostic yield of malignancy and cytological characteristics of the specimens obtained. 13 Thus, the aims of this study were to compare the samples obtained by EUS-FNA with and without a stylet for (1) diagnostic yield of malignancy and (2) characteristics of the samples such as degree of cellularity, adequacy, contamination, and amount of blood between the 2 techniques.…”

Endoscopic Ultrasound in Pancreatic Cancer: The New Perspective

“…Moreover, a prospective comparative trial showed better diagnostic accuracy when suction was applied (85% vs 75%), but more blood was present in the case of sampling with suction [65].…”