Prospective, randomized comparison of mechanical and electronic radial endoscopic ultrasound systems: assessment of performance parameters and image quality.

OBJECTIVE: Implementation of electronic image technology in endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) should improve image quality, but systematic data are scarce. The purpose of this study was to compare the image quality and performance of an electronic and a mechanical radial echoendoscope. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Eighty consecutive patients (42 M, mean age 56 years) in a tertiary referral center, without gross pathology (advanced tumors excluded), were prospectively randomized to EUS with the mechanical or electronic echoendoscope. Images from five standardized positions (pancreatobiliary and upper gastrointestinal (GI) tract) were taken by two examiners of differing experience. Time to acquire images was noted. Penetration depth was also measured. Image quality variables (overall quality, contrast, and structure discrimination) were assessed blindly on the basis of randomly shuffled images during three independent evaluations by the same experienced examiner (mean values were taken), using a visual analogue scale (VAS) from 1 (excellent) to 10 (inadequate). RESULTS: Time needed to achieve visualization of the distal common bile duct (CBD) was significantly shorter with the electronic scope (49.7+/-8.6 versus 97.4+/-8.5 s; p<0.001). Image quality with the electronic scope was rated significantly better for all variables assessed, whereas EUS penetration depth was similar in both groups. There were no differences in examiner experience. CONCLUSIONS: Electronic EUS provided better quality images according to the examiner's subjective assessment. An objective advantage was faster identification of the distal CBD.

Prospective pilot evaluation of a new needle prototype for endoscopic ultrasonography-guided fine-needle aspiration: comparison of cytology and histology yield.

OBJECTIVES: Endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) with the adjunct of EUS-guided fine needle aspiration has become an important diagnostic modality in gastroenterologic oncology. EUS-guided fine needle aspiration mainly relies on cytology; data are scarce that compare cytology and histology. While testing a 22-gauge prototype needle, we prospectively compared the yield for both. METHODS: Forty-two consecutive patients (27 male, 15 female; mean age 59.2 years, range: 17-90 years) were included. In each patient we aimed to make two needle passes, and if the material acquired appeared insufficient macroscopically (no in-room cytopathology was available), further passes were done. The material was sent for cytological and histological assessment. RESULTS: A median number of two passes (range: 2-3) were uneventfully performed for pancreatic lesions (n=30), mediastinal and other lymph nodes/masses (n=8) and various other lesions (n=4) and yielded adequate material for cytology, histology or at least one of the two investigations in 62, 67 and 74% of patients, respectively. No false positive results were found (specificity 100%). Sensitivities were 58.6 and 65.5%, respectively, for cytology and histology alone; combined assessment increased sensitivity to 79.3%. When adjusted values were calculated, based only on those cases with adequate material, sensitivity was 89.5% for cytology and 85.7% for histology, and increased to 100% with combined assessment. CONCLUSION: The new needle achieves sensitivities similar to those previously reported with no significant differences in sensitivity between cytology and histology. More effective tissue acquisition methods must be sought to improve overall results.