Skip Navigation
Skip to contents

Clin Endosc : Clinical Endoscopy

OPEN ACCESS

Author index

Page Path
HOME > Browse articles > Author index
Search
Man-Hoon Han 1 Article
Comparison of diagnostic performances of slow-pull suction and standard suction in endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle biopsy for gastrointestinal subepithelial tumors
Joon Seop Lee, Chang Min Cho, Yong Hwan Kwon, An Na Seo, Han Ik Bae, Man-Hoon Han
Clin Endosc 2022;55(5):637-644.   Published online August 17, 2022
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5946/ce.2021.257
AbstractAbstract PDFPubReaderePub
Background
/Aims: Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) is integral to the diagnosis of gastrointestinal (GI) subepithelial tumors (SETs). The impact of different EUS-FNB tissue sampling techniques on specimen adequacy and diagnostic accuracy in SETs has not been fully evaluated. This study aimed to compare the diagnostic outcomes of slow-pull (SP) and standard suction (SS) in patients with GI SETs.
Methods
In this retrospective comparative study, 54 patients were enrolled. Medical records were reviewed for location and size of the target lesion, FNB needle type/size, technical order, specimen adequacy, diagnostic yield, and adverse events. The acquisition rate of adequate specimens and diagnostic accuracy were compared according to EUS-FNB techniques.
Results
The mean lesion size was 42.6±36.4 mm, and most patients were diagnosed with GI stromal tumor (75.9%). The overall diagnostic accuracies of the SP and SS techniques were 83.3% and 81.5%, respectively (p=0.800). The rates of obtaining adequate core tissue were 79.6% and 75.9%, respectively (p=0.799). No significant clinical factors affected the rate of obtaining adequate core tissue, including lesion location and size, FNB needle size, and final diagnosis.
Conclusions
SP and SS had comparable diagnostic accuracies and adequate core tissue acquisition for GI SETs via EUS-FNB.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by  
  • Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration for gastrointestinal subepithelial lesions
    Takuto Hikichi, Minami Hashimoto, Takumi Yanagita, Tsunetaka Kato, Jun Nakamura
    Journal of Medical Ultrasonics.2024; 51(2): 195.     CrossRef
  • What method can we choose if rapid on-site evaluation is not available for the endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition of upper gastrointestinal subepithelial lesions?
    Yu Kyung Cho
    Clinical Endoscopy.2024; 57(1): 53.     CrossRef
  • The Diagnostic Approach of Benign Esophageal Tumors: A Narrative Review
    Alex R. Jones, Preksha Vankawala, Tarek Sawas
    Current Treatment Options in Gastroenterology.2024; 22(2): 44.     CrossRef
  • Diagnostic yield of endoscopic and EUS-guided biopsy techniques in subepithelial lesions of the upper GI tract: a systematic review
    Cynthia A. Verloop, Jacqueline A.C. Goos, Marco J. Bruno, Rutger Quispel, Lydi M.J.W. van Driel, Lieke Hol
    Gastrointestinal Endoscopy.2024; 99(6): 895.     CrossRef
  • EUS‐guided tissue acquisition from gastric subepithelial lesions—The optimal technique still remains undecided
    Suprabhat Giri, Sridhar Sundaram
    Australasian Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine.2024;[Epub]     CrossRef
  • An Esophageal Leiomyoma with Cystic Degeneration Mimicking a Malignant Neoplasm
    Gwang Ha Kim, Dong Chan Joo, Moon Won Lee, Bong Eun Lee, Kyungbin Kim
    The Ewha Medical Journal.2023;[Epub]     CrossRef
  • Prevalence, natural progression, and clinical practices of upper gastrointestinal subepithelial lesions in Korea: a multicenter study
    Younghee Choe, Yu Kyung Cho, Gwang Ha Kim, Jun-Ho Choi, Eun Soo Kim, Ji Hyun Kim, Eun Kwang Choi, Tae Hyeon Kim, Seong-Hun Kim, Do Hoon Kim
    Clinical Endoscopy.2023; 56(6): 744.     CrossRef
  • 3,015 View
  • 136 Download
  • 5 Web of Science
  • 7 Crossref
Close layer

Clin Endosc : Clinical Endoscopy Twitter Facebook
Close layer
TOP