Topic Highlight
Copyright ©2014 Baishideng Publishing Group Co.
World J Gastroenterol. Mar 7, 2014; 20(9): 2176-2185
Published online Mar 7, 2014. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v20.i9.2176
Table 1 Rate of histologically adequate specimens procured using the 3 common size fine needles in recent literature
Ref.Needle sizeNumber of patientsHistological adequacyLocation of biopsy
Bang et al[45]22-G FNA2866.7%Pancreas
22-G FNB28
Yasuda et al[52]19-G10498.0%Lymph nodes
Rong et al[51]22-G5470.4%Pancreas
25-G5461.1%Pancreas
22-G2774.1%Submucosal tumors
25-G2755.6%Submucosal tumors
Larghi et al[53]19-G12097.5%Various
Varadarajulu et al[19]19-G13894.7%Subepithelial masses
Pancreatic (head and uncinate lesions)
Table 2 Quality of samples using different needle sizes as reported by recent studies
Ref.Needle sizeNumber of patientsLocation of lesionResult
Lee et al[55]22-G and 25-G12Pancreas and peripancreaticNo difference between the two needles in terms of cellularity (P = 0.84)
Siddiqui et al[56]22-G and 25-G131PancreasNo significant difference in diagnostic yield (P = 0.18)
(22-G = 64 patients)
(25-G = 67 patients)
Fabbri et al[57]22-G and 25-G50PancreasNo significant difference in diagnostic accuracy 94% vs 86%
Imazu et al[58]22-G and 25-G43Pancreas, lymph nodes, submucosal tumorsSimilar overall diagnostic yield
22 > 25 in submucosal lesions (80% vs 60%)
25-G > 22-G in pancreatic lesions (91.5% vs 75%)
Camellini et al[59]22-G and 25-G127Pancreatic, lymph nodes and subepithelial tumorsNo significant difference in sample adequacy overall (77.8% vs 78.1%)
Pancreatic lesions: 25-G > 22-G (87.8% vs 76.7%)
Subepithelial lesions: 22-G > 25-G (55.5% vs 20%)
Lymph nodes: 22-G > 25-G (100% vs 60%)
Sakamoto et al[18]19-G, 22-G and 25-G24Pancreas19-G and 22-G > 25-G in adequacy of samples for histological diagnosis
25-G had better diagnostic accuracy in pancreatic head and uncinate lesions
Song et al[61]19-G and 22-G117Pancreatic and peripancreatic lesionsSample quality and cellular material: 19-G > 22-G (P = 0.03)