The “Twist-Needle” – a new concept for endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle-biopsy
submitted 18 March 2019
accepted after revision 11 June 2019
25 November 2019 (online)
Background and study aims Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) represents a standard method for tissue acquisition of lesions adjacent to the gastrointestinal wall. Needles of 19 gauge acquire more tissue than needles with a smaller diameter, but are often unable to penetrate solid, rigid masses. In this study we evaluated a novel prototype that links forward movement of the needle to rotation of the needle tip.
Materials and methods Two needle-models that generate either a regular axial movement or a combination of axial movement with rotation of the needle tip were compared ex vivo for measurement of pressure needed to penetrate artificial tissue. Furthermore, a standard 19-gauge EUS-FNB needle was compared to a modified model (“Twist Needle”) in an ex vivo model to measure the amount of tissue obtained.
Results Pressure measurements using the rotating needle revealed that significantly less pressure is needed for penetration compared to the regular axial movement (mean ± SEM; 3.7 ± 0.3 N vs. 5.5 ± 0.3 N). Using the modified 19-gauge “Twist Needle” did not diminish tissue acquisition measured by surface amount compared to a standard needle (37 ± 5 mm² vs. 35 ± 6 mm²).
Conclusion The method of rotation of an EUS-FNB needle tip upon forward movement requires less pressure for penetration but does not diminish tissue acquisition. Hence, the concept of our “Twist Needle” may potentially reduce some of the current limitations of standard EUS-FNB.
- 1 Dumonceau J-M, Deprez PH, Jenssen C. et al. Indications, results, and clinical impact of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided sampling in gastroenterology: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Clinical Guideline – Updated January 2017. Endoscopy 2017; 49: 695-714
- 2 Guedes HG, de Moura DTH, Duarte RB. et al. A comparison of the efficiency of 22G versus 25G needles in EUS-FNA for solid pancreatic mass assessment: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Sao Paulo Braz 2018; 73: e261
- 3 Layfield LJ, Schmidt RL, Hirschowitz SL. et al. Significance of the diagnostic categories „atypical“ and „suspicious for malignancy“ in the cytologic diagnosis of solid pancreatic masses. Diagn Cytopathol 2014; 42: 292-296
- 4 Suzuki R, Lee JH, Krishna SG. et al. Repeat endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration for solid pancreatic lesions at a tertiary referral center will alter the initial inconclusive result. J Gastrointest Liver Dis JGLD 2013; 22: 183-187
- 5 Song TJ, Kim JH, Lee SS. et al. The prospective randomized, controlled trial of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration using 22G and 19G aspiration needles for solid pancreatic or peripancreatic masses. Am J Gastroenterol 2010; 105: 1739-1745
- 6 Hayashi T, Ishiwatari H, Yoshida M. et al. Rapid on-site evaluation by endosonographer during endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration for pancreatic solid masses. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2013; 28: 656-663
- 7 Ishiwatari H, Hayashi T, Kawakami H. et al. Randomized trial comparing a side-port needle and standard needle for EUS-guided histology of pancreatic lesions. Gastrointest Endosc 2016; 84: 670-678
- 8 Hucl T, Wee E, Anuradha S. et al. Feasibility and efficiency of a new 22G core needle: a prospective comparison study. Endoscopy 2013; 45: 792-798
- 9 Kandel P, Tranesh G, Nassar A. et al. EUS-guided fine needle biopsy sampling using a novel fork-tip needle: a case-control study. Gastrointest Endosc 2016; 84: 1034-1039
- 10 El Hajj II, Wu H, Reuss S. et al. Prospective Assessment of the performance of a new fine needle biopsy device for EUS-guided sampling of solid lesions. Clin Endosc 2018; 51: 576-583
- 11 Bang JY, Magee SH, Ramesh J. et al. Randomized trial comparing fanning with standard technique for endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration of solid pancreatic mass lesions. Endoscopy 2013; 45: 445-450
- 12 Fritscher-Ravens A, Brand L, Knöfel WT. et al. Comparison of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration for focal pancreatic lesions in patients with normal parenchyma and chronic pancreatitis. Am J Gastroenterol 2002; 97: 2768-2775
- 13 Varadarajulu S, Tamhane A, Eloubeidi MA. Yield of EUS-guided FNA of pancreatic masses in the presence or the absence of chronic pancreatitis. Gastrointest Endosc 2005; 62: 728-736 ; quiz 751, 753
- 14 Attili F, Fabbri C, Yasuda I. et al. Low diagnostic yield of transduodenal endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle biopsy using the 19-gauge Flex needle: A large multicenter prospective study. Endosc Ultrasound 2017; 6: 402-408
- 15 Iglesias-Garcia J, Poley J-W, Larghi A. et al. Feasibility and yield of a new EUS histology needle: results from a multicenter, pooled, cohort study. Gastrointest Endosc 2011; 73: 1189-1196
- 16 Itoi T, Itokawa F, Kurihara T. et al. Experimental endoscopy: objective evaluation of EUS needles. Gastrointest Endosc 2009; 69: 509-516
- 17 Yusuf TE, Ho S, Pavey DA. et al. Retrospective analysis of the utility of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) in pancreatic masses, using a 22-gauge or 25-gauge needle system: a multicenter experience. Endoscopy 2009; 41: 445-448
- 18 Hosein PJ, Macintyre J, Kawamura C. et al. A retrospective study of neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX in unresectable or borderline-resectable locally advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma. BMCCancer 2012; 12: 199
- 19 Seufferlein T, Ettrich TJ. Treatment of pancreatic cancer-neoadjuvant treatment in resectable pancreatic cancer (PDAC). Transl Gastroenterol Hepatol 2019; 4: 21
- 20 Waddell N, Pajic M, Patch A-M. et al. Whole genomes redefine the mutational landscape of pancreatic cancer. Nature 2015; 518: 495-501
- 21 Mishra NK, Guda C. Genome-wide DNA methylation analysis reveals molecular subtypes of pancreatic cancer. Oncotarget 2017; 8: 28990-29012
- 22 Hwang JH, Aslanian HR, Thosani N. et al. Devices for use with EUS. VideoGIE 2017; 2: 35-45