Research Article

Comparison of the results of ultrasonography-guided percutaneous liver mass biopsy performed with 18 and 20 gauge needles

Volume: 58 Number: 1 March 14, 2019
  • Cenk Eraslan *
  • Ömer Faruk Kutsi Köseoğlu
  • Nezih Meydan
  • Nil Çulhacı
  • Aylin Oral
TR EN

Comparison of the results of ultrasonography-guided percutaneous liver mass biopsy performed with 18 and 20 gauge needles

Abstract

Aim: To evaluate the role of using 18 Gauge (G) and 20G sharp needles in ultrasonography (US)-guided percutaneous liver mass biopsy regarding diagnostic success and efficacy is aimed.

Materials and Methods: Sixty patients who underwent US-guided liver mass biopsy using 18G and 20G cutting needles were included in the study. Definite diagnosis was established based on results of histopathological examinations of the biopsied lesions, follow-up clinical and imaging findings and for performed patients the results of repeated biopsy. In addition, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and diagnostic accuracy were calculated for 18G and 20G needles.

Results: Among 60 liver masses, definite diagnosis was malignant in 54 (90%) masses and benign in 6 (10%) masses. Sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and diagnostic accuracy were 90.7%, 100.0%, 100.0%, 75.0%, and 91.6%, respectively, for the liver mass biopsies performed with 18G needles. These values were 87.0%, 100.0%, 100.0%, 66.7%, and 88.3%, respectively, for the liver mass biopsies performed with 20G needles. No significant difference was determined between the results found for the use of 18G needle and 20G needle in US-guided cutting needle biopsy performed in hepatic masses (p=0.540)

Conclusion: The present study demonstrated that 18G and 20G sharp needles had similar diagnostic success and efficacy in US-guided percutaneous biopsy of liver mass lesions. Owing to its fine calibration, 20G sharp needle can be preferred in high-risk patient groups, particularly in those with bleeding disorder.

Keywords

References

  1. Strassburg CP, Manns MP. Approaches to liver biopsy techniques--revisited. Semin Liver Dis 2006;26(4):318-27.
  2. Fulcher AS, Sterling RK. Hepatic neoplasms: computed tomography and magnetic resonance features. J Clin Gastroenterol 2002;34(4):463-71.
  3. Bonder A, Afdhal N. Evaluation of liver lesions. Clin Liver Dis 2012;16(2):271-83.
  4. Rockey DC, Caldwell SH, Goodman ZD, Nelson RC, Smith AD. Liver Biopsy. Hepatology 2009;49(3):1017-44.
  5. Gupta S. New techniques in image-guided percutaneous biopsy. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 2004;27(2):91-104.
  6. Al Knawy B, Shiffman M. Percutaneous liver biopsy in clinical practice. Liver Int 2007;27(9):1166-73.
  7. Zornoza J, Wallace S, Ordonez N, Lukeman J. Fine-needle aspiration biopsy of the liver. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1980;134(2):331-4.
  8. Hopper KD, Abendroth CS, Sturtz KW, Matthews YL, Shirk SJ, Stevens LA. Blinded comparison of biopsy needles and automated devices in vitro: 1. Biopsy of diffuse hepatic disease. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1993;161(6):1293-7.

Details

Primary Language

English

Subjects

Health Care Administration

Journal Section

Research Article

Authors

Ömer Faruk Kutsi Köseoğlu
0000-0001-7615-4266
Türkiye

Nezih Meydan
0000-0003-4100-5804
Türkiye

Nil Çulhacı
0000-0001-7181-4675
Türkiye

Aylin Oral
0000-0001-8014-4327
Türkiye

Publication Date

March 14, 2019

Submission Date

January 18, 2018

Acceptance Date

February 2, 2018

Published in Issue

Year 2019 Volume: 58 Number: 1

Vancouver
1.Cenk Eraslan, Ömer Faruk Kutsi Köseoğlu, Nezih Meydan, Nil Çulhacı, Aylin Oral. Comparison of the results of ultrasonography-guided percutaneous liver mass biopsy performed with 18 and 20 gauge needles. EJM. 2019 Mar. 1;58(1):8-12. doi:10.19161/etd.418122

Cited By

Ege Journal of Medicine enables the sharing of articles according to the Attribution-Non-Commercial-Share Alike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) license.