Diagnostic quality of biopsy specimens: comparison between a conventional biopsy forceps and Multibite forceps

被引:22
作者
Fantin, AC
Neuweiler, J
Binek, JS
Suter, WR
Meyenberger, C
机构
[1] Kantonsspital St Gallen, Dept Internal Med, Div Gastroenterol, St Gallen, Switzerland
[2] Kantonsspital St Gallen, Dept Pathol, St Gallen, Switzerland
关键词
D O I
10.1067/mge.2001.118945
中图分类号
R57 [消化系及腹部疾病];
学科分类号
摘要
Background. The endoscopic biopsy is a prerequisite for histopathologic diagnosis. Various types of forceps are used to obtain tissue specimens. The aim of this study was to assess and compare the diagnostic quality of biopsy specimens obtained with a conventional forceps and a Multibite forceps. Methods: In a prospective, partially blinded, and randomized trial that included 250 patients referred for diagnostic upper and/or lower endoscopy, 510 biopsy specimens obtained with the Multibite forceps were compared with 520 specimens obtained with a conventional forceps. An experienced, blinded pathologist evaluated the specimens for diameter, depth of specimen, artifacts, anatomic orientation, vitality, general histologic quality, and diagnostic quality. Statistical analysis was performed by using the Fisher exact test. A p value of < 0.05 was regarded as significant. Results: There were no statistically significant differences between the specimens obtained with the 2 forceps. The p values for the evaluated parameters were as follows: diameter 0.45, depth of specimen 0.56, artifacts 1.0, pathoanatomic orientation 0.40, vitality 0.45, and histologic diagnostic quality 0.53. Conclusion: The quality of biopsy specimens obtained with the Multibite forceps is comparable with that of specimens taken with a conventional forceps. Use of the Multibite forceps saves time in that 4 specimens can be obtained in 1 pass in situations in which a large number of specimens are needed or when the potential for transmission of infection is of concern.
引用
收藏
页码:600 / 604
页数:5
相关论文
共 18 条
[1]
STANDARD BIOPSY FORCEPS VERSUS LARGE-CAPACITY FORCEPS WITH AND WITHOUT NEEDLE [J].
BERNSTEIN, DE ;
BARKIN, JS ;
REINER, DK ;
LUBIN, J ;
PHILLIPS, RS ;
GRAUER, L .
GASTROINTESTINAL ENDOSCOPY, 1995, 41 (06) :573-576
[2]
ENDOSCOPIC SMALL BOWEL MUCOSAL BIOPSY - A CONTROLLED TRIAL EVALUATING FORCEPS SIZE AND BIOPSY LOCATION IN THE DIAGNOSIS OF NORMAL AND ABNORMAL MUCOSAL ARCHITECTURE [J].
DANDALIDES, SM ;
CAREY, WD ;
PETRAS, R ;
ACHKAR, E .
GASTROINTESTINAL ENDOSCOPY, 1989, 35 (03) :197-200
[3]
COMPARISON OF WEIGHT, DEPTH, AND DIAGNOSTIC ADEQUACY OF SPECIMENS OBTAINED WITH 16 DIFFERENT BIOPSY FORCEPS DESIGNED FOR UPPER GASTROINTESTINAL ENDOSCOPY [J].
DANESH, BJZ ;
BURKE, M ;
NEWMAN, J ;
AYLOTT, A ;
WHITFIELD, P ;
COTTON, PB .
GUT, 1985, 26 (03) :227-231
[4]
SALMONELLA NEWPORT INFECTIONS TRANSMITTED BY FIBEROPTIC COLONOSCOPY [J].
DWYER, DM ;
KLEIN, EG ;
ISTRE, GR ;
ROBINSON, MG ;
NEUMANN, DA ;
MCCOY, GA .
GASTROINTESTINAL ENDOSCOPY, 1987, 33 (02) :84-87
[5]
Disposable versus reusable biopsy forceps: A prospective evaluation of costs [J].
Kozarek, RA ;
Raltz, SL ;
Merriam, LD ;
Sumida, SE .
GASTROINTESTINAL ENDOSCOPY, 1996, 43 (01) :10-13
[6]
EFFECT OF FORCEPS SIZE AND MODE OF ORIENTATION ON ENDOSCOPIC SMALL-BOWEL BIOPSY EVALUATION [J].
LADAS, SD ;
TSAMOURI, M ;
KOUVIDOU, C ;
RAPTIS, SA .
GASTROINTESTINAL ENDOSCOPY, 1994, 40 (01) :51-55
[7]
ENDOSCOPIC BIOPSY TECHNIQUE FOR ACQUIRING LARGER MUCOSAL SAMPLES [J].
LEVINE, DS ;
REID, BJ .
GASTROINTESTINAL ENDOSCOPY, 1991, 37 (03) :332-337
[8]
OTTENJANN R, 1975, MED KLIN, V70, P757
[9]
Endoscopic disinfection - A worldwide problem [J].
Rey, JF .
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL GASTROENTEROLOGY, 1999, 28 (04) :291-297
[10]
A performance, safety and cost comparison of reusable and disposable endoscopic biopsy forceps: a prospective, randomized trial [J].
Rizzo, J ;
Bernstein, D ;
Gress, F .
GASTROINTESTINAL ENDOSCOPY, 2000, 51 (03) :257-261