1
|
Jearth V, Sundaram S, Rana SS. Diagnostic and interventional EUS in hepatology: An updated review. Endosc Ultrasound 2022; 11:355-370. [PMID: 36255023 PMCID: PMC9688142 DOI: 10.4103/eus-d-22-00027] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/14/2022] Open
Abstract
EUS has become an increasingly used diagnostic and therapeutic modality in the armamentarium of endoscopists. With ever-expanding indications, EUS is being used in patients with liver disease, for both diagnosis and therapy. EUS is playing an important role in providing additional important information to that provided by cross-sectional imaging modalities such as computerized tomography and magnetic resonance imaging. Domains of therapy that were largely restricted to interventional radiologists have become accessible to endosonologists. From liver biopsy and sampling of liver lesions to ablative therapy for liver lesions and vascular interventions for varices, there is increased use of EUS in patients with liver disease. In this review, we discuss the various diagnostic and therapeutic applications of EUS in patients with various liver diseases.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Vaneet Jearth
- Department of Gastroenterology, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India
| | - Sridhar Sundaram
- Department of Digestive Diseases and Clinical Nutrition, Tata Memorial Hospital, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India
| | - Surinder Singh Rana
- Department of Gastroenterology, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India,Address for correspondence Prof. Surinder Singh Rana, Department of Gastroenterology, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh - 160 012, India. E-mail:
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Gheorghiu M, Seicean A, Bolboacă SD, Rusu I, Seicean R, Pojoga C, Moșteanu O, Sparchez Z. Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine-Needle Biopsy versus Fine-Needle Aspiration in the Diagnosis of Focal Liver Lesions: Prospective Head-to-Head Comparison. Diagnostics (Basel) 2022; 12:diagnostics12092214. [PMID: 36140619 PMCID: PMC9497513 DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics12092214] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/09/2022] [Revised: 09/09/2022] [Accepted: 09/12/2022] [Indexed: 11/16/2022] Open
Abstract
Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) or fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) from focal liver lesions are indicated in selected cases, but there has been no previous comparison of needle types of the same size. The aim of our study was to compare the histologic diagnostic accuracy and adequacy of cores obtained with EUS-FNB needles in contrast to those obtained with FNA needles in focal liver lesions. This prospective one-center study included patients with left lobe hepatic focal lesions with contraindications for percutaneous liver biopsy or need for EUS for concomitant lesions. Each patient had one pass of 22G EUS-FNB (Franseen) needle and one pass of 22G EUS-FNA in a crossover manner, without macroscopic on-site evaluation. Each sample was analyzed separately for histologic adequacy and diagnosis. The final diagnosis was based on histology results or on imaging follow-up in the case of negative biopsies. The EUS-FNB samples (n = 30) were found to be more adequate for histologic analysis, with more cellularity and longer tissue aggregates than the EUS-FNA samples (n = 30). The accuracy of EUS-FNB was 100%, whereas that of EUS-FNA was 86.7% (p = 0.039). No post-procedure complications were noted. The 22G EUS-FNB needle proved superior to 22G EUS-FNA in terms of tissue acquisition diagnostic accuracy and histologic adequacy in focal liver lesions.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Marcel Gheorghiu
- Department of Gastroenterology, Iuliu Hațieganu University of Medicine and Pharmacy, 400192 Cluj-Napoca, Romania
| | - Andrada Seicean
- Department of Gastroenterology, Regional Institute of Gastroenterology and Hepatology Prof. Dr. Octavian Fodor, 400192 Cluj-Napoca, Romania
| | - Sorana D. Bolboacă
- Department of Medical Informatics and Biostatistics, Iuliu Hațieganu University of Medicine and Pharmacy, 400349 Cluj-Napoca, Romania
- Correspondence:
| | - Ioana Rusu
- Department of Gastroenterology, Iuliu Hațieganu University of Medicine and Pharmacy, 400192 Cluj-Napoca, Romania
- Department of Gastroenterology, Regional Institute of Gastroenterology and Hepatology Prof. Dr. Octavian Fodor, 400192 Cluj-Napoca, Romania
| | - Radu Seicean
- First Surgical Department, Hațieganu University of Medicine and Pharmacy, 400005 Cluj-Napoca, Romania
| | - Cristina Pojoga
- Department of Gastroenterology, Regional Institute of Gastroenterology and Hepatology Prof. Dr. Octavian Fodor, 400192 Cluj-Napoca, Romania
- Department of Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Babeș-Bolyai University, 400029 Cluj-Napoca, Romania
| | - Ofelia Moșteanu
- Department of Gastroenterology, Iuliu Hațieganu University of Medicine and Pharmacy, 400192 Cluj-Napoca, Romania
- Department of Gastroenterology, Regional Institute of Gastroenterology and Hepatology Prof. Dr. Octavian Fodor, 400192 Cluj-Napoca, Romania
| | - Zeno Sparchez
- Department of Gastroenterology, Iuliu Hațieganu University of Medicine and Pharmacy, 400192 Cluj-Napoca, Romania
- Department of Gastroenterology, Regional Institute of Gastroenterology and Hepatology Prof. Dr. Octavian Fodor, 400192 Cluj-Napoca, Romania
| |
Collapse
|