4.7 Article

Use of a new jumbo forceps improves tissue acquisition of Barrett's esophagus surveillance biopsies

Journal

GASTROINTESTINAL ENDOSCOPY
Volume 70, Issue 6, Pages 1072-1078

Publisher

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2009.04.009

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: The major risk factors for the development of esophageal adenocarcinoma remain long-standing GERD and resultant Barrett's esophagus (BE). Finding the exact method of adequate tissue sampling for surveillance of dysplasia in BE remains a dilemma. Objective: We prospectively compared standard large-capacity biopsy forceps with a new jumbo biopsy forceps for dysplasia detection in BE. Setting/Design: Prospective, single-center investigation. Patients/Interventions: We prospectively enrolled 32 patients undergoing surveillance endoscopy for BE. Biopsy samples were obtained in paired fashion alternating between the experimental (jumbo) and control (large-capacity) forceps. Main Outcome Measurements: Each sample was assessed for histopathology, specimen size, and adequacy. Results: A total of 7.12 specimens were available for analysis For this investigation. Six patients were found to have dysplasia, and in 5 of those patients, the dysplasia was only detected with the jumbo forceps. The mean width was significantly greater in the Radial Jaw 4 jumbo group (3.3 mm vs 1.9 mm [P < .005]) as was the mean depth (2.0 mm vs 1.1 mm [P < .005]). Sixteen percent of samples obtained with the standard forceps provided an adequate sample, whereas the jumbo forceps provided an adequate sample 79% of the time (P < .05). Limitations: A lack of a validated index for assessment of tissue adequacy in BE. Conclusion: The Radial Jaw 4 jumbo biopsy forceps significantly improves dysplasi, detection and adequate tissue sampling in patients undergoing endoscopy for BE. (Gastrointest Endosc 2009;70:1072-8.)

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available