JUM Track the topics, authors and articles important to you
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Jandzinski, D. I.
Right arrow Articles by Gottlieb, R. H.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Jandzinski, D. I.
Right arrow Articles by Gottlieb, R. H.
© 2003 by the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine
J Ultrasound Med 22:1233-1237 • 0278-4297

Technical Advance

Treated Needles

Do They Facilitate Sonographically Guided Biopsies?

Dana I. Jandzinski, MD, Nancy Carson, BS, RDMS, RVT, Delphine Davis, PhD, Deborah J. Rubens, MD, Susan L. Voci, MD and Ronald H. Gottlieb, MD, MPH

Department of Radiology, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, New York USA.

Address correspondence and reprint requests to Dana Jandzinski, MD, Department of Radiology, University of Rochester Medical Center, 601 Elmwood Ave, Box 648, Rochester, NY 14642.

Objective. We sought to compare needle visualization and diagnostic yield rates resulting from the use of several commercially available treated needles in sonographically guided biopsies. Methods. We conducted a randomized prospective study in which 61 patients (42 women and 19 men; mean age, 57 years; range, 19–84 years) were assigned to undergo biopsies (37 thyroid and 24 liver, 2 passes per patient) with 1 of 4 different 22-gauge needles: Teflon coated, etched tip, echogenic polymer coated, and untreated. Two blinded radiologists independently scored needle shaft and tip visualization from 0 (no visualization) to 4 (excellent visualization). After blinded cytologic evaluation, the individual passes were rated as adequate or inadequate for establishing a tissue diagnosis. Results. The echogenic polymer-coated needle had the highest mean score ± SD for visualization of both the shaft (3.4 ± 0.90) and tip (3.5 ± 0.87) compared with the untreated (shaft, 2.2 ± 0.77; P = 0.003; tip, 2.8 ± 0.92; P = 0.01), Teflon-coated (shaft, 2.7 ± 0.94; tip, 3.1 ± 0.75), and etched tip (shaft, 3.0 ± 0.82; tip, 3.0 ± 0.56) needles. Diagnostic yield rates for the 4 different needle types were 75.0% for the echogenic polymer-coated, 64.7% for the Teflon-coated, 56.3% for the etched tip, and 75.0% for the untreated needles (no significant difference). Conclusions. The echogenic polymer-coated needle was the best visualized of all needles evaluated, both treated and untreated. No significant difference was found in diagnostic yield rates, but that may be reflective of the relatively small sample size.

Key Words: biopsy • liver • sonography • thyroid




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
P. M. Phal, D. M. Brooks, and R. Wolfe
Sonographically Guided Biopsy of Focal Lesions: A Comparison of Freehand and Probe-Guided Techniques Using a Phantom
Am. J. Roentgenol., May 1, 2005; 184(5): 1652 - 1656.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2003 by the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine.