Review
Copyright ©The Author(s) 2019.
World J Gastrointest Endosc. Aug 16, 2019; 11(8): 454-471
Published online Aug 16, 2019. doi: 10.4253/wjge.v11.i8.454
Table 1 Published comparative studies regarding fine needle aspiration versus fine needle biopsy needles performance in terms of diagnostic yields
RefStudy designN°Lesions,pan-creaticRoseNeedles (G),FNA vs FNBOverall diagnostic yieldSample adequacyComments
[4]RCT(56)Yes22 vs 22 ProcoreEquivalentEquivalent
[29]Meta-analysis (11 observational study and 4 RCTs)1024 (mainly pancreatic and lymph nodes)#6 NO #9 Yes19 (only one study); 22 and 25 G vs 22EquivalentEquivalentin the absence of ROSE, FNB was associated with better diagnostic adequacy (P  =  0.02) and FNB required less passes
[50]RCT194 (100)No22 vs 22 Procore84 vs 90EquivalentLower n° of passes for FNB vs FNA needle (2 vs 3)
[51]RCT377 (249)Yes22 vs 22 ProcoreEquivalent81.7 vs 92.6
[52]RCT(36)No22 vs 22 ProcoreEquivalentEquivalent1.1 passes needed for FNB vs 1.83 passes for FNA (P < 0.05)
[53]Meta-analysis (8 RCT)921No22, 25, and 19 (only one study) G vs 22EquivalentEquivalentFew passes for FNB
[54]Retrospective42 (12)Yes22 or 25EquivalentEquivalent
[55]Retrospective(87)No22 vs 22 FranseenEquivalentEquivalent
[56]Retrospective(76)No22 vs 2532.4 vs 60Equivalent
[57]RCT(214)No25 vs 25 ProcoreEquivalent69.4 vs 81
[58]RCT(116)Yes22, 25 vs 22, 25 ProcoreEquivalentEquivalentFew passes for FNB
[59]Meta-analysis (7 comparative studies and 4 single cohort studies)896 (pancreatic and lymph nodes)Only in 4 studies22 and 25EquivalentEquivalent
[60]RCT140 (73)YES19, 22, 2567 vs 90EquivalentDiagnostic yield only for pancreatic masses was equivalent
[61]Prospective comparative145 (69)No22 vs 22 ProcoreEquivalentEquivalentFew passes for FNB
[62]RCT58 (16)No22 vs 22 ProcoreEquivalentEquivalentFew passes for FNB
[63]RCT (13 centers)608 (312)In 7 centers25 vs 20 Procore44 vs 77Equivalent
Table 2 Published comparative studies regarding fine needle biopsy needles performance in terms of diagnostic yield
RefStudy designN°Lesions,pan-creaticRoseNeedlesGaugeDiagnostic yield, %Sample adequacy, %Comments
[64]Cohort(201)NoOpposing bevel vs reverse bevel22-25 vs 20-22-2571 vs 9087 vs 99Opposing bevel needle resulted superior
[65]Cohort194 (100)Only in 12% of casesFranseen vs fork tip2264 vs 85The use of ROSE is a confounding factorFork tip seems superior, but the study lack of methodology
[66]RCT(50)YesFranseen vs fork tip22> 90%, equivalent94 vs 98Equivalent
[67]Cohort(66)Procore22 vs 2587.5 vs 82.198 vs 95Equivalent