Comparative assessment of biopsy forceps for upper endoscopy

Pathologist blinded randomized study

K. L. Woods, B. S. Anand, R. Cole, D. M. Killip, A. Ertan, M. S. Osato, R. M. Genta, H. M. Malaty, I. E. Gurer, D. Deross

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Background: Several types of biopsy forceps are in use however, there are few comparative data. Objectives: To prospectively evaluate in a double blind fashion, biopsy specimens obtained by disposable vs. reusable forceps of different shape. Methods: Six different forceps were examined: Bard disposable forceps, oval cup with and without needle and alligator cup with and without needle with cup diameter of 2.3 mm. Microvasive disposable alligator shaped forceps without needle (cup size of 2.2 mm) and Olympus reusable oval cup forceps with needle (cup size 2 mm). Two specimens were obtained with each forceps; 12 specimens per patient. All biopsies were obtained by 3 endoscopists. Biopsies were evaluated blindly for weight (mg), dimensions (mm3), depth, crush artifact, shearing effect, and adequacy of histological information (0 = inadequate, 1 = suboptimal, and 2 = adequate). Results: 27 subjects were studied. Disposable forceps were equal to the reusable forceps with respect to the biopsy weight, size, and the amount of tissue shearing. Tissue depth was greater with all disposable alligator forceps and disposable oval forceps without needle, compared to reusable forceps (p<0.001). Disposable oval cups with needle did not perform comparably to the others in all parameters (p<0.01). No difference was observed between the different groups of forceps when assessed according to the adequacy of the biopsy specimens for histological assessment. Conclusions: Our findings indicate that in general, the amount of tissue obtained with most disposable forceps was equal to that with reusable forceps and both types of forceps were similar with respect to the adequacy of the biopsy specimens for histological assessment. This study was funded in part by Bard Interventional Products Division, Billerica, MA.

Original languageEnglish (US)
JournalGastrointestinal Endoscopy
Volume45
Issue number4
StatePublished - 1997

Fingerprint

Surgical Instruments
Endoscopy
Biopsy
Needles
Alligators and Crocodiles
Pathologists
Weights and Measures
Artifacts

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Gastroenterology

Cite this

Woods, K. L., Anand, B. S., Cole, R., Killip, D. M., Ertan, A., Osato, M. S., ... Deross, D. (1997). Comparative assessment of biopsy forceps for upper endoscopy: Pathologist blinded randomized study. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, 45(4).

Comparative assessment of biopsy forceps for upper endoscopy : Pathologist blinded randomized study. / Woods, K. L.; Anand, B. S.; Cole, R.; Killip, D. M.; Ertan, A.; Osato, M. S.; Genta, R. M.; Malaty, H. M.; Gurer, I. E.; Deross, D.

In: Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, Vol. 45, No. 4, 1997.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Woods, KL, Anand, BS, Cole, R, Killip, DM, Ertan, A, Osato, MS, Genta, RM, Malaty, HM, Gurer, IE & Deross, D 1997, 'Comparative assessment of biopsy forceps for upper endoscopy: Pathologist blinded randomized study', Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, vol. 45, no. 4.
Woods, K. L. ; Anand, B. S. ; Cole, R. ; Killip, D. M. ; Ertan, A. ; Osato, M. S. ; Genta, R. M. ; Malaty, H. M. ; Gurer, I. E. ; Deross, D. / Comparative assessment of biopsy forceps for upper endoscopy : Pathologist blinded randomized study. In: Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. 1997 ; Vol. 45, No. 4.
@article{122b6ae890274e95bb9cf2bfc6ea7a87,
title = "Comparative assessment of biopsy forceps for upper endoscopy: Pathologist blinded randomized study",
abstract = "Background: Several types of biopsy forceps are in use however, there are few comparative data. Objectives: To prospectively evaluate in a double blind fashion, biopsy specimens obtained by disposable vs. reusable forceps of different shape. Methods: Six different forceps were examined: Bard disposable forceps, oval cup with and without needle and alligator cup with and without needle with cup diameter of 2.3 mm. Microvasive disposable alligator shaped forceps without needle (cup size of 2.2 mm) and Olympus reusable oval cup forceps with needle (cup size 2 mm). Two specimens were obtained with each forceps; 12 specimens per patient. All biopsies were obtained by 3 endoscopists. Biopsies were evaluated blindly for weight (mg), dimensions (mm3), depth, crush artifact, shearing effect, and adequacy of histological information (0 = inadequate, 1 = suboptimal, and 2 = adequate). Results: 27 subjects were studied. Disposable forceps were equal to the reusable forceps with respect to the biopsy weight, size, and the amount of tissue shearing. Tissue depth was greater with all disposable alligator forceps and disposable oval forceps without needle, compared to reusable forceps (p<0.001). Disposable oval cups with needle did not perform comparably to the others in all parameters (p<0.01). No difference was observed between the different groups of forceps when assessed according to the adequacy of the biopsy specimens for histological assessment. Conclusions: Our findings indicate that in general, the amount of tissue obtained with most disposable forceps was equal to that with reusable forceps and both types of forceps were similar with respect to the adequacy of the biopsy specimens for histological assessment. This study was funded in part by Bard Interventional Products Division, Billerica, MA.",
author = "Woods, {K. L.} and Anand, {B. S.} and R. Cole and Killip, {D. M.} and A. Ertan and Osato, {M. S.} and Genta, {R. M.} and Malaty, {H. M.} and Gurer, {I. E.} and D. Deross",
year = "1997",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "45",
journal = "Gastrointestinal Endoscopy",
issn = "0016-5107",
publisher = "Mosby Inc.",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparative assessment of biopsy forceps for upper endoscopy

T2 - Pathologist blinded randomized study

AU - Woods, K. L.

AU - Anand, B. S.

AU - Cole, R.

AU - Killip, D. M.

AU - Ertan, A.

AU - Osato, M. S.

AU - Genta, R. M.

AU - Malaty, H. M.

AU - Gurer, I. E.

AU - Deross, D.

PY - 1997

Y1 - 1997

N2 - Background: Several types of biopsy forceps are in use however, there are few comparative data. Objectives: To prospectively evaluate in a double blind fashion, biopsy specimens obtained by disposable vs. reusable forceps of different shape. Methods: Six different forceps were examined: Bard disposable forceps, oval cup with and without needle and alligator cup with and without needle with cup diameter of 2.3 mm. Microvasive disposable alligator shaped forceps without needle (cup size of 2.2 mm) and Olympus reusable oval cup forceps with needle (cup size 2 mm). Two specimens were obtained with each forceps; 12 specimens per patient. All biopsies were obtained by 3 endoscopists. Biopsies were evaluated blindly for weight (mg), dimensions (mm3), depth, crush artifact, shearing effect, and adequacy of histological information (0 = inadequate, 1 = suboptimal, and 2 = adequate). Results: 27 subjects were studied. Disposable forceps were equal to the reusable forceps with respect to the biopsy weight, size, and the amount of tissue shearing. Tissue depth was greater with all disposable alligator forceps and disposable oval forceps without needle, compared to reusable forceps (p<0.001). Disposable oval cups with needle did not perform comparably to the others in all parameters (p<0.01). No difference was observed between the different groups of forceps when assessed according to the adequacy of the biopsy specimens for histological assessment. Conclusions: Our findings indicate that in general, the amount of tissue obtained with most disposable forceps was equal to that with reusable forceps and both types of forceps were similar with respect to the adequacy of the biopsy specimens for histological assessment. This study was funded in part by Bard Interventional Products Division, Billerica, MA.

AB - Background: Several types of biopsy forceps are in use however, there are few comparative data. Objectives: To prospectively evaluate in a double blind fashion, biopsy specimens obtained by disposable vs. reusable forceps of different shape. Methods: Six different forceps were examined: Bard disposable forceps, oval cup with and without needle and alligator cup with and without needle with cup diameter of 2.3 mm. Microvasive disposable alligator shaped forceps without needle (cup size of 2.2 mm) and Olympus reusable oval cup forceps with needle (cup size 2 mm). Two specimens were obtained with each forceps; 12 specimens per patient. All biopsies were obtained by 3 endoscopists. Biopsies were evaluated blindly for weight (mg), dimensions (mm3), depth, crush artifact, shearing effect, and adequacy of histological information (0 = inadequate, 1 = suboptimal, and 2 = adequate). Results: 27 subjects were studied. Disposable forceps were equal to the reusable forceps with respect to the biopsy weight, size, and the amount of tissue shearing. Tissue depth was greater with all disposable alligator forceps and disposable oval forceps without needle, compared to reusable forceps (p<0.001). Disposable oval cups with needle did not perform comparably to the others in all parameters (p<0.01). No difference was observed between the different groups of forceps when assessed according to the adequacy of the biopsy specimens for histological assessment. Conclusions: Our findings indicate that in general, the amount of tissue obtained with most disposable forceps was equal to that with reusable forceps and both types of forceps were similar with respect to the adequacy of the biopsy specimens for histological assessment. This study was funded in part by Bard Interventional Products Division, Billerica, MA.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=33748952815&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=33748952815&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

VL - 45

JO - Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

JF - Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

SN - 0016-5107

IS - 4

ER -