FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W1990993100> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W1990993100 endingPage "745" @default.
• W1990993100 startingPage "741" @default.
• W1990993100 abstract "To promote the appropriate use of new or emerging endoscopic technologies and those technologies that have an impact on endoscopic practice, the ASGE Technology Committee presents relevant information to practicing physicians in the form of technology reviews. Evidence-based methodology is employed wherein a MEDLINE literature search is performed to identify pertinent clinical studies on the topic, a MAUDE (Food and Drug Administration Center for Devices and Radiological Health) database search is performed to identify the reported complications of a given technology, and both are supplemented by accessing the “related articles” feature of PubMed and by scrutiny of pertinent references cited in the identified studies. Controlled clinical trials are emphasized, but in many cases data from randomized controlled trials are lacking; in such cases, large case series, preliminary clinical studies, and expert opinion are utilized. Technical data are gathered from traditional and Web-based publications, proprietary publications, and informal communications with pertinent vendors. Reviews are drafted by 1 or 2 committee members, reviewed in significant detail by the committee as a whole, and approved by the Governing Board of the ASGE. When financial guidance is appropriate, the most recent coding data and list prices at the time of publication are provided. For this review the MEDLINE database was searched through October, 2005 for articles related to devices for tissue sampling by using the keywords “biopsy forceps” and “gastrointestinal endoscopy” plus “cytology brushing,” and “fine needle aspiration.” Practitioners should continue to monitor the medical literature for subsequent data about the efficacy, safety, and socioeconomic aspects of these technologies. Numerous methods and devices have been developed for tissue sampling during gastrointestinal endoscopy, including pinch biopsy, brush cytology, EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration (FNA), true cut needle biopsy, snare excision, suction biopsy, endoscopic mucosal resection, and combinations of techniques. Endoscopic tissue sampling is addressed to various extents in other ASGE clinical practice guidelines and technology status evaluation reports.1The role of endoscopy in the surveillance of premalignant conditions of the upper gastrointestinal tract. Guidelines for clinical application.Gastrointest Endosc. 1988; 34: 18S-20SPubMed Google Scholar, 2The role of colonoscopy in the management of patients with colonic polyps. Guidelines for clinical application.Gastrointest Endosc. 1988; 34: 6S-7SPubMed Google Scholar, 3Tissue sampling and analysis.Gastrointest Endosc. 1991; 37: 663-665Abstract Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (4) Google Scholar, 4Gilbert D.A. DiMarino A.J. Jensen D.M. et al.Status evaluation: hot biopsy forceps.Gastrointest Endosc. 1992; 38: 753-756Abstract Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (73) Google Scholar, 5Croffie J. Carpenter S. Chuttani R. et al.Technology assessment status evaluation: disposable endoscopic accessories.Gastrointest Endosc. 2005; 62: 477-479Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (23) Google Scholar, 6Biliary and pancreatic sampling devices during ERCP.Gastrointest Endosc. 1996; 43: 775-778Google Scholar, 7American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Technology status evaluation: device reprocessing companies: May 1998.Gastrointest Endosc. 1998; 48: 717-722Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (1) Google Scholar, 8Carr-Locke D.L. al-Kawas F.H. Branch M.S. et al.Technology assessment status evaluation: bipolar and multipolar accessories, February 1996.Gastroenterol Nurs. 1998; 21: 187-189Crossref PubMed Scopus (5) Google Scholar, 9American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy ASGE guidelines for clinical application: the role of ERCP in diseases of the biliary tract and pancreas.Gastrointest Endosc. 1999; 50: 915-920Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (29) Google Scholar, 10American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy ASGE guidelines for clinical application: the role of colonoscopy in the management of patients with colonic polyps neoplasia.Gastrointest Endosc. 1999; 50: 921-924Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (17) Google Scholar, 11Faigel D.O. Eisen G.M. Baron T.H. et al.Tissue sampling and analysis.Gastrointest Endosc. 2003; 57: 811-816Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (19) Google Scholar, 12Baron T.H. Mallery J.S. Hirota W.K. et al.The role of endoscopy in the evaluation and treatment of patients with pancreaticobiliary malignancy.Gastrointest Endosc. 2003; 58: 643-649Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (65) Google Scholar This report is meant to both complement and update these previous reports, focusing on select, currently available endoscopic tissue sampling devices. Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) and EUS-guided tissue sampling are addressed in separate reports.13American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Technology assessment status evaluation: tissue sampling during endosonography, February 1997.Gastrointest Endosc. 1998; 47: 576-578Abstract Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (19) Google Scholar, 14American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Technology status report evaluation: endoscopic mucosal resection.Gastrointest Endosc. 2000; 52: 860-863Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF Scopus (25) Google Scholar Single-bite cold-biopsy forceps allow sampling of only a single specimen at a time. Biopsy forceps equipped with a needle-spike between the opposing biopsy cups, sometimes termed double-bite forceps, are most commonly employed because they enhance directed lesion sampling via impalement of the tissue and stabilization of the forceps cups, they provide deeper biopsies than non-needle versions,15Bernstein D.E. Barkin J.S. Reiner D.K. et al.Standard biopsy forceps versus large-capacity forceps with and without needle.Gastrointest Endosc. 1995; 41: 573-576Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (34) Google Scholar and they secure the first specimen on the needle during collection of a second in a single pass through the accessory channel. Biopsy cup jaws may be round, oval, or elongated, fenestrated or nonfenestrated, and smooth or serrated.16Carpenter S. Petersen B.T. Chuttani R. et al.ASGE technology status evaluation report: polypectomy devices.Gastrointest Endosc. 2006; (in press)Google Scholar Large-capacity or “jumbo” biopsy forceps sample a larger volume of tissue encompassing 2 to 3 times the surface area compared to standard forceps, but they do not reliably yield deeper specimens; they require a 3.6-mm or greater biopsy channel.11Faigel D.O. Eisen G.M. Baron T.H. et al.Tissue sampling and analysis.Gastrointest Endosc. 2003; 57: 811-816Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (19) Google Scholar, 17Levine D.S. Blount P.L. Rudolph R.E. et al.Safety of a systematic endoscopic biopsy protocol in patients with Barrett's esophagus.Am J Gastroenterol. 2000; 95: 1152-1157Crossref PubMed Google Scholar Forceps designed to allow for multiple bite sampling have been developed that can obtain up to 4 or more specimens on a single pass through the accessory channel, potentially contributing to decreased operative time when a large number of specimens are to be obtained. Other variations on the standard designs that may offer advantages in challenging circumstances include “swing-jaw,” “rotatable,” and “angled” forceps.16Carpenter S. Petersen B.T. Chuttani R. et al.ASGE technology status evaluation report: polypectomy devices.Gastrointest Endosc. 2006; (in press)Google Scholar Small, more malleable forceps are available for intraductal biopsies of the pancreatic and biliary ducts during ERCP. An alternative wire-guided intraductal biopsy device has a conical tipped circumferential cutting rim that deposits sampled tissue in a cylindrical retrieval chamber.18de Bellis M. Sherman S. Fogel E.L. et al.Tissue sampling at ERCP in suspected malignant biliary strictures (part 1).Gastrointest Endosc. 2002; 56: 552-561Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (159) Google Scholar, 19de Bellis M. Sherman S. Fogel E.L. et al.Tissue sampling at ERCP in suspected malignant biliary strictures (part 2).Gastrointest Endosc. 2002; 56: 720-730Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (206) Google Scholar Monopolar hot biopsy forceps, developed for simultaneous tissue biopsy and coagulation, were reviewed in a previous ASGE technology committee status evaluation report4Gilbert D.A. DiMarino A.J. Jensen D.M. et al.Status evaluation: hot biopsy forceps.Gastrointest Endosc. 1992; 38: 753-756Abstract Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (73) Google Scholar and are not recommended for routine tissue sampling. Polypectomy snares come in a variety of shapes, sizes, and materials, are marketed as disposable or reusable, and may be designed with special features. They are addressed in a separate status evaluation report.16Carpenter S. Petersen B.T. Chuttani R. et al.ASGE technology status evaluation report: polypectomy devices.Gastrointest Endosc. 2006; (in press)Google Scholar, 20Forde K.A. Treat M.R. Tsai J.L. Initial clinical experience with a bipolar snare for colon polypectomy.Surg Endosc. 1993; 7: 427-428Crossref PubMed Scopus (9) Google Scholar, 21Tappero G. Gaia E. De Giuli P. et al.Cold snare excision of small colorectal polyps.Gastrointest Endosc. 1992; 38: 310-313Abstract Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (154) Google Scholar, 22McAfee J.H. Katon R.M. Tiny snares prove safe and effective for removal of diminutive colorectal polyps.Gastrointest Endosc. 1994; 40: 301-303Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (50) Google Scholar A variety of cytology brushes are available for tissue sampling in the luminal GI tract and the pancreatic and biliary ducts. Designs include brushes of variable sizes and stiffness, wire guided or non–wire guided, single or multilumen, and with or without a flexible guide tip. Outer sheaths for brushes used in ERCP are 6 to 8 F.18de Bellis M. Sherman S. Fogel E.L. et al.Tissue sampling at ERCP in suspected malignant biliary strictures (part 1).Gastrointest Endosc. 2002; 56: 552-561Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (159) Google Scholar, 19de Bellis M. Sherman S. Fogel E.L. et al.Tissue sampling at ERCP in suspected malignant biliary strictures (part 2).Gastrointest Endosc. 2002; 56: 720-730Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (206) Google Scholar, 23Foutch P.G. Harlan J.R. Kerr D. et al.Wire-guided brush cytology: a new endoscopic method for diagnosis of bile duct cancer.Gastrointest Endosc. 1989; 35: 243-247Abstract Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (60) Google Scholar These are described more completely in a previous report.6Biliary and pancreatic sampling devices during ERCP.Gastrointest Endosc. 1996; 43: 775-778Google Scholar A cytology balloon for nonendoscopic esophageal cytological screening and surveillance for infectious and neoplastic diseases has been described.24Casco C. Martins D. Lettieri S. et al.A new device for abrasive cytology sampling during upper gastrointestinal endoscopy: experience in infectious and neoplastic diseases.Endoscopy. 1999; 31: 348-351Crossref PubMed Scopus (6) Google Scholar Hollow bore needles may be used for aspiration cytological tissue sampling. ERCP aspiration needles consist of a retractable 7.5 mm 22 gauge needle attached to a ball- tipped catheter.6Biliary and pancreatic sampling devices during ERCP.Gastrointest Endosc. 1996; 43: 775-778Google Scholar The needle is advanced into the target tissue under fluoroscopic guidance and aspiration is applied. Howell et al developed a technique for sampling biliary strictures by endoscopic FNA.25Howell D.A. Beveridge R.P. Bosco J. et al.Endoscopic needle aspiration biopsy at ERCP in the diagnosis of biliary strictures.Gastrointest Endosc. 1992; 38: 531-535Abstract Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (106) Google Scholar Other prototypes of aspiration catheters with an extending steel needle have been proposed.26Wegener M. Adamek R. Puncture of submucosal and extrinsic tumors: is there a clinical need? Puncture techniques and their accuracy.Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am. 1995; 5: 615-623PubMed Google Scholar Needle aspiration of submucosal lesions under direct endoscopic guidance can be performed; however, yields are poor and this technique has not gained broad acceptance. EUS-guided FNA is covered in a previously published ASGE technology committee status evaluation report.27Inoue H. Kawano T. Takeshita K. et al.Modified soft-balloon methods during ultrasonic probe examination for superficial esophageal cancer.Endoscopy. 1998; 30: A41-A43PubMed Google Scholar Many factors determine the yield of tissue sampling, including adequacy of the specimens, processing of the samples, interpretation of the slides, and effect of tumor type on cancer detection rate.18de Bellis M. Sherman S. Fogel E.L. et al.Tissue sampling at ERCP in suspected malignant biliary strictures (part 1).Gastrointest Endosc. 2002; 56: 552-561Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (159) Google Scholar The adequacy of the specimens is dependent on the anatomic site, tumor characteristics, and number of samples collected. As a rule, more extensive (number and volume) tissue sampling improves the diagnostic yield. Specimen orientation, fixation, and staining are also important.11Faigel D.O. Eisen G.M. Baron T.H. et al.Tissue sampling and analysis.Gastrointest Endosc. 2003; 57: 811-816Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (19) Google Scholar Spiked and nonspiked forceps were compared in a randomized, blinded study using a 2-bite mucosal sampling technique in upper endoscopy. Irrespective of the location of the mucosal sampling, the nonspiked forceps were associated with a significantly higher rate of missing samples than the spiked forceps (28% vs 13%).28Padda S. Shah I. Ramirez F.C. Adequacy of mucosal sampling with the “two-bite” forceps technique: a prospective, randomized, blinded study.Gastrointest Endosc. 2003; 57: 170-173Abstract Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (16) Google Scholar In selected cases, using a combination of techniques can increase diagnostic accuracy. Brush cytology may be a useful adjunct to pinch biopsy and is often helpful in the diagnosis of certain malignancies and infections, particularly esophageal squamous cell carcinoma and esophageal candidiasis.6Biliary and pancreatic sampling devices during ERCP.Gastrointest Endosc. 1996; 43: 775-778Google Scholar Specific techniques and protocols for tissue sampling in different clinical settings, such as when sampling tissue from an ulcer or a polypoid mass, for cancer or dysplasia surveillance (Barrett's or chronic idiopathic colitis), when testing for Helicobacter pylori, or in cases of suspected malabsorption, have been extensively reviewed in an ASGE clinical practice guideline.11Faigel D.O. Eisen G.M. Baron T.H. et al.Tissue sampling and analysis.Gastrointest Endosc. 2003; 57: 811-816Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (19) Google Scholar The cancer detection rate for biliary and pancreatic lesions is clearly less than that for endoscopic sampling of lesions in the esophagus, stomach, and colon.6Biliary and pancreatic sampling devices during ERCP.Gastrointest Endosc. 1996; 43: 775-778Google Scholar, 18de Bellis M. Sherman S. Fogel E.L. et al.Tissue sampling at ERCP in suspected malignant biliary strictures (part 1).Gastrointest Endosc. 2002; 56: 552-561Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (159) Google Scholar, 19de Bellis M. Sherman S. Fogel E.L. et al.Tissue sampling at ERCP in suspected malignant biliary strictures (part 2).Gastrointest Endosc. 2002; 56: 720-730Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (206) Google Scholar Enhanced diagnostic techniques applied to sampled tissue include flow cytometry, digital image analysis, molecular genetic analysis, immunocytochemical techniques, and genotyping.19de Bellis M. Sherman S. Fogel E.L. et al.Tissue sampling at ERCP in suspected malignant biliary strictures (part 2).Gastrointest Endosc. 2002; 56: 720-730Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (206) Google Scholar None of these, however, are routinely applied. Histopathologic evaluation is helpful to differentiate malignant, inflammatory, and infectious processes. Tissue biopsy is routinely obtained from any suspicious lesion during endoscopic evaluation.11Faigel D.O. Eisen G.M. Baron T.H. et al.Tissue sampling and analysis.Gastrointest Endosc. 2003; 57: 811-816Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (19) Google Scholar When the gross endoscopic appearance is normal, histological analysis may still provide useful information. Tissue analysis is occasionally performed to document the outcome of prior endoscopic or medical therapy. When the gross endoscopic appearance reveals a specific condition, tissue analysis is unnecessary if therapy will not be altered.11Faigel D.O. Eisen G.M. Baron T.H. et al.Tissue sampling and analysis.Gastrointest Endosc. 2003; 57: 811-816Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (19) Google Scholar Risks and benefits of tissue biopsy should be considered when there is an increased potential for hemorrhage, such as in patients with coagulopathies,29Kadakia S.C. Angueira C.E. Ward J.A. et al.Gastrointestinal endoscopy in patients taking antiplatelet agents and anticoagulants: survey of ASGE members.Gastrointest Endosc. 1996; 44: 309-316Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (47) Google Scholar although in general standard forceps biopsy techniques may be applied in anticoagulated patients.30Eisen G.M. Baron T.H. Dominitz J.A. et al.Guideline on the management of anticoagulation and antiplatelet therapy for endoscopic procedures.Gastrointest Endosc. 2002; 55: 775-779Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (301) Google Scholar The choice of sampling technique depends on device availability, operator expertise, the endoscopic procedure performed, target tissue, and anticipated amount of tissue required for diagnosis or to guide therapy. For the yields of histological sampling according to different clinical situations in upper endoscopy, lower endoscopy, as well as in specific surveillance protocols, please refer to the ASGE clinical practice guideline “Tissue sampling and analysis.”11Faigel D.O. Eisen G.M. Baron T.H. et al.Tissue sampling and analysis.Gastrointest Endosc. 2003; 57: 811-816Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (19) Google Scholar The type of tumor responsible for biliary strictures influences the cancer detection rate for all sampling techniques. Indeed, in most series, brush cytology and forceps biopsy have a higher sensitivity for cholangiocarcinoma (44%-100%) than for pancreatic cancer (30%-65%).18de Bellis M. Sherman S. Fogel E.L. et al.Tissue sampling at ERCP in suspected malignant biliary strictures (part 1).Gastrointest Endosc. 2002; 56: 552-561Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (159) Google Scholar A recent study suggested that biopsy procurement with a forceps at ERCP appears to be the most sensitive of all tissue sampling techniques for biliary strictures. Brush cytology remains the simplest and most commonly used technique for obtaining tissue samples from biliary strictures at ERCP. Repeated brushing with consecutive brushes may enhance cancer detection. Stricture dilation before brush cytology does not improve diagnostic yield.18de Bellis M. Sherman S. Fogel E.L. et al.Tissue sampling at ERCP in suspected malignant biliary strictures (part 1).Gastrointest Endosc. 2002; 56: 552-561Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (159) Google Scholar, 19de Bellis M. Sherman S. Fogel E.L. et al.Tissue sampling at ERCP in suspected malignant biliary strictures (part 2).Gastrointest Endosc. 2002; 56: 720-730Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (206) Google Scholar, 31de Bellis M. Fogel E.L. Sherman S. et al.Influence of stricture dilation and repeat brushing on the cancer detection rate of brush cytology in the evaluation of malignant biliary obstruction.Gastrointest Endosc. 2003; 58: 176-182Abstract Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (143) Google Scholar Although specificity approaches 100%, the sensitivity of brush cytology for cancer is modest, with an overall mean sensitivity of only 42%, perhaps mainly due to its limited cellular yield.19de Bellis M. Sherman S. Fogel E.L. et al.Tissue sampling at ERCP in suspected malignant biliary strictures (part 2).Gastrointest Endosc. 2002; 56: 720-730Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (206) Google Scholar The cancer detection rate at ERCP is increased by combining at least 2 sampling methods, with the highest sensitivity demonstrated for the combination of endoscopic FNA, biopsy, and brush cytology.6Biliary and pancreatic sampling devices during ERCP.Gastrointest Endosc. 1996; 43: 775-778Google Scholar, 18de Bellis M. Sherman S. Fogel E.L. et al.Tissue sampling at ERCP in suspected malignant biliary strictures (part 1).Gastrointest Endosc. 2002; 56: 552-561Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (159) Google Scholar, 19de Bellis M. Sherman S. Fogel E.L. et al.Tissue sampling at ERCP in suspected malignant biliary strictures (part 2).Gastrointest Endosc. 2002; 56: 720-730Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (206) Google Scholar Sampling from both the pancreatic duct and the common bile duct may also increase the yield. The forceps biopsy is the best single technique for the diagnosis of neoplasms involving the major duodenal papilla; cancer is detected in 77% to 88% of cases.32Jailwala J. Fogel E.L. Sherman S. et al.Triple-tissue sampling at ERCP in malignant biliary obstruction.Gastrointest Endosc. 2000; 51: 383-390Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (291) Google Scholar Proposed algorithms for sampling of suspected bilio-pancreatic malignancies have recently been published.19de Bellis M. Sherman S. Fogel E.L. et al.Tissue sampling at ERCP in suspected malignant biliary strictures (part 2).Gastrointest Endosc. 2002; 56: 720-730Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (206) Google Scholar, 33Eisen G.M. Dominitz J.A. Faigel D.O. et al.An annotated algorithmic approach to malignant biliary obstruction.Gastrointest Endosc. 2001; 53: 849-852Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (29) Google Scholar Complication rates of tissue sampling devices used in the upper and lower GI tract in patients without coagulopathies are exceedingly rare.34Dominitz J.A. Eisen G.M. Baron T.H. et al.Complications of colonoscopy.Gastrointest Endosc. 2003; 57: 441-445Abstract Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (155) Google Scholar, 35Eisen G.M. Baron T.H. Dominitz J.A. et al.Complications of upper GI endoscopy.Gastrointest Endosc. 2002; 55: 784-793Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (196) Google Scholar, 36Bronowicki J.P. Venard V. Botte C. et al.Patient-to-patient transmission of hepatitis C virus during colonoscopy.N Engl J Med. 1997; 337: 237-240Crossref PubMed Scopus (408) Google Scholar Complications associated with cold biopsy forceps tissue sampling and cold snare resection include rare instances of bleeding (0.07%) and perforation (0.07%).21Tappero G. Gaia E. De Giuli P. et al.Cold snare excision of small colorectal polyps.Gastrointest Endosc. 1992; 38: 310-313Abstract Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (154) Google Scholar, 34Dominitz J.A. Eisen G.M. Baron T.H. et al.Complications of colonoscopy.Gastrointest Endosc. 2003; 57: 441-445Abstract Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (155) Google Scholar, 35Eisen G.M. Baron T.H. Dominitz J.A. et al.Complications of upper GI endoscopy.Gastrointest Endosc. 2002; 55: 784-793Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (196) Google Scholar, 37Wexner S.D. Garbus J.E. Singh J.J. A prospective analysis of 13,580 colonoscopies: reevaluation of credentialing guidelines.Surg Endosc. 2001; 15: 251-261Crossref PubMed Scopus (226) Google Scholar, 38Weston A.P. Campbell D.R. Diminutive colonic polyps: histopathology, spatial distribution, concomitant significant lesions, and treatment complications.Am J Gastroenterol. 1995; 90: 24-28PubMed Google Scholar There are increased risks associated with the addition of electrocautery to tissue sampling. Complications of hot biopsy forceps and electrocautery snare resection include hemorrhage, perforation, and postcoagulation (transmural burn) syndrome. Bleeding may be acute or delayed, occurring up to 2 weeks after the procedure. The risk of significant hemorrhage from monopolar hot biopsy of diminutive polyps is 0.39%.38Weston A.P. Campbell D.R. Diminutive colonic polyps: histopathology, spatial distribution, concomitant significant lesions, and treatment complications.Am J Gastroenterol. 1995; 90: 24-28PubMed Google Scholar Perforation after using the hot biopsy technique occurs with an estimated frequency of 0.05%.39Wadas D.D. Sanowski R.A. Complications of the hot biopsy forceps technique.Gastrointest Endosc. 1988; 34: 32-37Abstract Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (129) Google Scholar The major and most common complication of colonoscopic polypectomy is hemorrhage.40Nivatvongs S. Complications in colonoscopic polypectomy: lessons to learn from an experience with 1576 polyps.Am Surg. 1988; 54: 61-63PubMed Google Scholar The reported incidence in large surveys ranges from 0.77% to 2.24%.40Nivatvongs S. Complications in colonoscopic polypectomy: lessons to learn from an experience with 1576 polyps.Am Surg. 1988; 54: 61-63PubMed Google Scholar, 41Rankin G. Sivack M.J. Indications, contraindications, and complications of colonoscopy. 2nd ed. WB Saunders Company, Philadelphia1999Google Scholar Perforation associated with colonoscopic polypectomy is also a major complication, with a frequency of 0.11% to 0.42%.41Rankin G. Sivack M.J. Indications, contraindications, and complications of colonoscopy. 2nd ed. WB Saunders Company, Philadelphia1999Google Scholar In one retrospective review that reported an overall complication rate of 2.2% for colonoscopy polypectomy, a transmural burn was the most common complication after bleeding.42Nivatvongs S. Complications in colonoscopic polypectomy. An experience with 1,555 polypectomies.Dis Colon Rectum. 1986; 29: 825-830Crossref PubMed Scopus (144) Google Scholar A retrospective analysis of blended versus pure coagulation current for colonoscopic polypectomy reported no significant differences in the overall complication rates between the 2 groups.43Van Gossum A. Cozzoli A. Adler M. et al.Colonoscopic snare polypectomy: analysis of 1485 resections comparing two types of current.Gastrointest Endosc. 1992; 38: 472-475Abstract Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (173) Google Scholar However, a significant difference was seen in the timing of bleeding with all of the major hemorrhages occurring immediately or within 12 hours when blended current was used, and all were delayed (2-8 days) when pure coagulation current was used. Perforation is a conceivable complication associated with brush cytology. In the case of tissue sampling at ERCP, adverse effects have not been reported with bile collection and biliary brush cytology beyond usual complications associated with the endoscopic procedure.6Biliary and pancreatic sampling devices during ERCP.Gastrointest Endosc. 1996; 43: 775-778Google Scholar Temporary placement of a pancreatic stent after manipulation of the pancreatic duct may decrease the risk of pancreatitis after pancreatic duct brushing.19de Bellis M. Sherman S. Fogel E.L. et al.Tissue sampling at ERCP in suspected malignant biliary strictures (part 2).Gastrointest Endosc. 2002; 56: 720-730Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (206) Google Scholar There are case reports of pancreatitis related to endoscopic biopsy of the papilla.11Faigel D.O. Eisen G.M. Baron T.H. et al.Tissue sampling and analysis.Gastrointest Endosc. 2003; 57: 811-816Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (19) Google Scholar Despite this, complications related to endoscopic biopsy or removal of duodenal adenomas at a distance from the papilla appear to be uncommon.11Faigel D.O. Eisen G.M. Baron T.H. et al.Tissue sampling and analysis.Gastrointest Endosc. 2003; 57: 811-816Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (19) Google Scholar Cases of transmission of infection associated with reusable biopsy forceps have been attributed to breaches in accepted standards of device reprocessing.36Bronowicki J.P. Venard V. Botte C. et al.Patient-to-patient transmission of hepatitis C virus during colonoscopy.N Engl J Med. 1997; 337: 237-240Crossref PubMed Scopus (408) Google Scholar Recently, proper endoscope reprocessing has been identified to be the most important factor in preventing biopsy forceps–related interpatient infection.44Kinney T.P. Kozarek R.A. Raltz S. et al.Contamination of single-use biopsy forceps: a prospective in vitro analysis.Gastrointest Endosc. 2002; 56: 209-212Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (18) Google Scholar In 2 prospective, randomized, pathologist-blinded trials there were no perceived differences in quality of specimen attained for histological diagnosis among a variety of commercially available reusable and disposable biopsy forceps.45Yang R. Naritoku W. Laine L. Prospective, randomized comparison of disposable and reusable biopsy forceps in gastrointestinal endoscopy.Gastrointest Endosc. 1994; 40: 671-674Abstract Full Text PubMed Google Scholar, 46Woods K.L. Anand B.S. Cole R.A. et al.Influence of endoscopic biopsy forceps characteristics on tissue specimens: results of a prospective randomized study.Gastrointest Endosc. 1999; 49: 177-183Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (47) Google Scholar Forceps with central spikes obtain deeper biopsies than nonspiked versions.15Bernstein D.E. Barkin J.S. Reiner D.K. et al.Standard biopsy forceps versus large-capacity forceps with and without needle.Gastrointest Endosc. 1995; 41: 573-576Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (34) Google Scholar Spikes, however, do not ensure retention of >2 samples. The quality of biopsy specimens obtained with forceps designed for multiple (>2) bite sampling is comparable with that of specimens taken with conventional forceps. Use of these forceps saves time in that 4 specimens can be obtained in 1 pass.47Fantin A.C. Neuweiler J. Binek J.S. et al.Diagnostic quality of biopsy specimens: comparison between a conventional biopsy forceps and multibite forceps.Gastrointest Endosc. 2001; 54: 600-604Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (33) Google Scholar In one study, cholangioscopic biopsy was superior to that done under fluoroscopic control.6Biliary and pancreatic sampling devices during ERCP.Gastrointest Endosc. 1996; 43: 775-778Google Scholar The limited comparative trials regarding differing snare shapes or configurations, or the use of bipolar versus monopolar snares, do not indicate superiority of modified over standard snares for resection of sessile colon polyps.16Carpenter S. Petersen B.T. Chuttani R. et al.ASGE technology status evaluation report: polypectomy devices.Gastrointest Endosc. 2006; (in press)Google Scholar In a study comparing 4 disposable cytology brushes in upper endoscopy, all had adequate cellular yield; however, one brush was associated with less drying artifact.48Camp R. Rutkowski M.A. Atkison K. et al.A prospective, randomized, blinded trial of cytological yield with disposable cytology brushes in upper gastrointestinal tract lesions.Am J Gastroenterol. 1992; 87: 1439-1442PubMed Google Scholar There are no published comparative studies of yields of brushing with standard and double lumen biliary cytology catheters. The functional performance of reusable biopsy forceps ultimately deteriorates with increased number of uses. The durability can be extended with care in use and reprocessing. Cost comparisons depend mainly on the cost of disposable devices.5Croffie J. Carpenter S. Chuttani R. et al.Technology assessment status evaluation: disposable endoscopic accessories.Gastrointest Endosc. 2005; 62: 477-479Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (23) Google Scholar When carrying out such estimates, users should also factor in the cost of medical waste disposal and environmental impact associated with disposal of single-use devices. A recent ASGE Technology Report reviewed issues and data regarding the costs of disposable versus reusable tissue sampling devices.5Croffie J. Carpenter S. Chuttani R. et al.Technology assessment status evaluation: disposable endoscopic accessories.Gastrointest Endosc. 2005; 62: 477-479Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (23) Google Scholar A study of costs associated with disposable and reusable biopsy forceps concluded that reusable forceps are cost effective after 7 uses.49Kozarek R.A. Expandable endoprostheses for gastrointestinal stenoses.Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am. 1994; 4: 279-295PubMed Google Scholar Yang et al50Yang R. Ng S. Nichol M. et al.A cost and performance evaluation of disposable and reusable biopsy forceps in GI endoscopy.Gastrointest Endosc. 2000; 51: 266-270Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (36) Google Scholar more recently found that malfunction of reusable forceps increased with number of uses. At up to 15 to 20 uses, reusable and disposable forceps costs are similar when the cost of disposable forceps is around $40.00. When reusable forceps can be used more than 20 times, they are less expensive. Deprez et al, in a much larger study (7740 sessions), reported that total purchase and reprocessing costs for reusable forceps were 25% of those of disposable devices.51Deprez P.H. Horsmans Y. Van Hassel M. et al.Disposable versus reusable biopsy forceps: a prospective cost evaluation.Gastrointest Endosc. 2000; 51: 262-265Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (29) Google Scholar Further, an average of 315 biopsy sessions were performed with a reusable forceps, extending their mean life to 3 years. In another study, disposable forceps outperformed their reusable counterparts and offered a cost advantage.52Rizzo J. Bernstein D. Gress F. A performance, safety and cost comparison of reusable and disposable endoscopic biopsy forceps: a prospective, randomized trial.Gastrointest Endosc. 2000; 51: 257-261Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (48) Google Scholar These authors also reported a concern over residual proteinacious material observed in reusable forceps, raising an infection-control risk. This charge was countered, however, by a study by Kozarek et al, who performed an ex vivo evaluation of cleaning and in vivo evaluation of function, performance, and durability of reusable forceps.53Kozarek R.A. Raltz S.L. Brandabur J.J. et al.In vitro study and in vivo application of a reusable double-channel sphincterotome.Endoscopy. 2001; 33: 401-404Crossref PubMed Scopus (5) Google Scholar Their analysis concluded that reusable biopsy forceps are confidently sterilized when accepted cleaning and sterilization protocols are followed. Sterilized reusable biopsy forceps were used a mean 91 times, rendering the potential for significant cost saving, again depending on acquisition and reprocessing costs. A German multicenter study recently showed that colonoscopy biopsy forceps can be reliably reprocessed after a standardized protocol.54Jung M. Beilenhoff U. Pietsch M. et al.Standardized reprocessing of reusable colonoscopy biopsy forceps is effective: results of a German multicenter study.Endoscopy. 2003; 35: 197-202Crossref PubMed Scopus (15) Google Scholar Tissue sampling has become integral to endoscopy and is used to complement endoscopic imaging. Techniques include pinch forceps biopsy, brush cytology, snare excision, and FNA. Endoscopic tissue sampling is generally safe and effective. Tissue sampling technique and device choice should be determined on the basis of the individual case circumstances." @default.
• W1990993100 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W1990993100 creator A5011522328 @default.
• W1990993100 creator A5023274920 @default.
• W1990993100 creator A5025156152 @default.
• W1990993100 creator A5050326462 @default.
• W1990993100 creator A5064553367 @default.
• W1990993100 creator A5071471515 @default.
• W1990993100 creator A5075809454 @default.
• W1990993100 creator A5079134995 @default.
• W1990993100 creator A5081012989 @default.
• W1990993100 creator A5083546294 @default.
• W1990993100 date "2006-05-01" @default.
• W1990993100 modified "2023-10-02" @default.
• W1990993100 title "Update on endoscopic tissue sampling devices" @default.
• W1990993100 cites W1879887820 @default.
• W1990993100 cites W1963911209 @default.
• W1990993100 cites W1965106301 @default.
• W1990993100 cites W1965244368 @default.
• W1990993100 cites W1978945092 @default.
• W1990993100 cites W1982568991 @default.
• W1990993100 cites W1985475566 @default.
• W1990993100 cites W2004260410 @default.
• W1990993100 cites W2007316188 @default.
• W1990993100 cites W2007316760 @default.
• W1990993100 cites W2007323589 @default.
• W1990993100 cites W2012752567 @default.
• W1990993100 cites W2014973896 @default.
• W1990993100 cites W2015398744 @default.
• W1990993100 cites W2015851042 @default.
• W1990993100 cites W2029224031 @default.
• W1990993100 cites W2041467329 @default.
• W1990993100 cites W2045071708 @default.
• W1990993100 cites W2047343758 @default.
• W1990993100 cites W2056298348 @default.
• W1990993100 cites W2057692029 @default.
• W1990993100 cites W2057898020 @default.
• W1990993100 cites W2071030205 @default.
• W1990993100 cites W2073237545 @default.
• W1990993100 cites W2077540626 @default.
• W1990993100 cites W2081932934 @default.
• W1990993100 cites W2101607685 @default.
• W1990993100 cites W2148769961 @default.
• W1990993100 cites W2162915901 @default.
• W1990993100 cites W2205079417 @default.
• W1990993100 cites W2320974824 @default.
• W1990993100 cites W2323584920 @default.
• W1990993100 cites W2335028914 @default.
• W1990993100 cites W2472804796 @default.
• W1990993100 cites W2523688137 @default.
• W1990993100 cites W2609660941 @default.
• W1990993100 cites W2916330652 @default.
• W1990993100 cites W4233789510 @default.
• W1990993100 cites W4234000041 @default.
• W1990993100 cites W4234697751 @default.
• W1990993100 cites W4238369352 @default.
• W1990993100 cites W4245501479 @default.
• W1990993100 cites W4247917462 @default.
• W1990993100 cites W4249137723 @default.
• W1990993100 cites W4367138751 @default.
• W1990993100 cites W2463031943 @default.
• W1990993100 doi "https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2006.02.041" @default.
• W1990993100 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16650530" @default.
• W1990993100 hasPublicationYear "2006" @default.
• W1990993100 type Work @default.
• W1990993100 sameAs 1990993100 @default.
• W1990993100 citedByCount "41" @default.
• W1990993100 countsByYear W19909931002012 @default.
• W1990993100 countsByYear W19909931002013 @default.
• W1990993100 countsByYear W19909931002015 @default.
• W1990993100 countsByYear W19909931002016 @default.
• W1990993100 countsByYear W19909931002017 @default.
• W1990993100 countsByYear W19909931002018 @default.
• W1990993100 countsByYear W19909931002019 @default.
• W1990993100 countsByYear W19909931002020 @default.
• W1990993100 countsByYear W19909931002021 @default.
• W1990993100 countsByYear W19909931002022 @default.
• W1990993100 countsByYear W19909931002023 @default.
• W1990993100 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W1990993100 hasAuthorship W1990993100A5011522328 @default.
• W1990993100 hasAuthorship W1990993100A5023274920 @default.
• W1990993100 hasAuthorship W1990993100A5025156152 @default.
• W1990993100 hasAuthorship W1990993100A5050326462 @default.
• W1990993100 hasAuthorship W1990993100A5064553367 @default.
• W1990993100 hasAuthorship W1990993100A5071471515 @default.
• W1990993100 hasAuthorship W1990993100A5075809454 @default.
• W1990993100 hasAuthorship W1990993100A5079134995 @default.
• W1990993100 hasAuthorship W1990993100A5081012989 @default.
• W1990993100 hasAuthorship W1990993100A5083546294 @default.
• W1990993100 hasBestOaLocation W19909931001 @default.
• W1990993100 hasConcept C106131492 @default.
• W1990993100 hasConcept C140779682 @default.
• W1990993100 hasConcept C19527891 @default.
• W1990993100 hasConcept C31972630 @default.
• W1990993100 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W1990993100 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W1990993100 hasConceptScore W1990993100C106131492 @default.
• W1990993100 hasConceptScore W1990993100C140779682 @default.

• next