TY - JOUR
T1 - The Use of a Stylet in Endoscopic Ultrasound with Fine-Needle Aspiration
T2 - A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
AU - Lai, Andrew
AU - Davis-Yadley, Ashley
AU - Lipka, Seth
AU - Lalama, Miguel
AU - Rabbanifard, Roshanak
AU - Bromberg, David
AU - Nehaul, Roger
AU - Kumar, Ambuj
AU - Kulkarni, Prasad
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2017 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
PY - 2019/1/1
Y1 - 2019/1/1
N2 - Background: Endoscopic ultrasound with fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is the most efficacious way to collect specimens from a solid lesion adjacent to the gastrointestinal tract and is performed with an internal stylet during puncture. However, its reinsertion into the needle is time-consuming. Controversy surrounds whether quality of cytology specimen improves with stylet use. We performed a meta-analysis comparing the use of stylet versus no stylet with EUS-FNA of gastrointestinal-related masses. Methods: Multiple databases were searched from inception until April 28, 2016. Discordant findings from independent extractions were reviewed by at least 2 investigators. Methods were executed as per the standards of the Cochrane Collaboration. Primary outcomes assessed were diagnostic adequacy of individual specimen samples, accuracy, and yield. Secondary outcomes included overall diagnostic accuracy of per-malignant lesion, cellularity, contamination, and bloodiness of the sample, and adverse events. Results: Five randomized control trials were identified comparing stylet versus no stylet use, which enrolled 504 patients, evaluated 537 lesions, and 1914 distinct specimens. There was no difference in diagnostic adequacy [risk ratio (RR)=1.00; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.95-1.07], accuracy (RR=0.98; 95% CI, 0.90-1.06), or yield (RR=0.96; 95% CI, 0.89-1.03). No stylet use was favored in per-lesion malignant diagnosis (RR=0.85; 95% CI, 0.76-0.96). There was no difference in representative cellularity, contamination, or bloodiness of specimens obtained with or without stylet use. Conclusions: Stylet use confers no significant advantage in diagnostic adequacy, accuracy, yield, contamination, bloodiness, or cellularity over no stylet. We reinforce that no stylet use may be used preferentially in EUS-FNA as a more convenient technique and is favored with a higher per-lesion malignant diagnosis.
AB - Background: Endoscopic ultrasound with fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is the most efficacious way to collect specimens from a solid lesion adjacent to the gastrointestinal tract and is performed with an internal stylet during puncture. However, its reinsertion into the needle is time-consuming. Controversy surrounds whether quality of cytology specimen improves with stylet use. We performed a meta-analysis comparing the use of stylet versus no stylet with EUS-FNA of gastrointestinal-related masses. Methods: Multiple databases were searched from inception until April 28, 2016. Discordant findings from independent extractions were reviewed by at least 2 investigators. Methods were executed as per the standards of the Cochrane Collaboration. Primary outcomes assessed were diagnostic adequacy of individual specimen samples, accuracy, and yield. Secondary outcomes included overall diagnostic accuracy of per-malignant lesion, cellularity, contamination, and bloodiness of the sample, and adverse events. Results: Five randomized control trials were identified comparing stylet versus no stylet use, which enrolled 504 patients, evaluated 537 lesions, and 1914 distinct specimens. There was no difference in diagnostic adequacy [risk ratio (RR)=1.00; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.95-1.07], accuracy (RR=0.98; 95% CI, 0.90-1.06), or yield (RR=0.96; 95% CI, 0.89-1.03). No stylet use was favored in per-lesion malignant diagnosis (RR=0.85; 95% CI, 0.76-0.96). There was no difference in representative cellularity, contamination, or bloodiness of specimens obtained with or without stylet use. Conclusions: Stylet use confers no significant advantage in diagnostic adequacy, accuracy, yield, contamination, bloodiness, or cellularity over no stylet. We reinforce that no stylet use may be used preferentially in EUS-FNA as a more convenient technique and is favored with a higher per-lesion malignant diagnosis.
KW - EUS
KW - FNA
KW - endoscopic ultrasound
KW - fine-needle aspiration
KW - meta-analysis
KW - no stylet
KW - stylet
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85021173944&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85021173944&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1097/MCG.0000000000000867
DO - 10.1097/MCG.0000000000000867
M3 - Review article
C2 - 28644309
AN - SCOPUS:85021173944
SN - 0192-0790
VL - 53
SP - 1
EP - 8
JO - Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology
JF - Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology
IS - 1
ER -