No abstract available.
Catheters*

The name of the fourth author was incorrectly rendered as Nakane Masaki. The given name and family name were inadvertently inverted. The correct order is: Masaki Nakane.

The name of the fourth author was incorrectly rendered as Nakane Masaki. The given nameand family name were inadvertently inverted. The correct order is: Masaki Nakane.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: We applied a back light system (BLS) with a magnifying glass to improve the ability to assess the adequacy of specimen sampling using endosonography. We conducted this study to evaluate the efficacy of the BLS in sampling of specimens by endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration of solid pancreatic masses. METHODS: This was a prospective, randomized, crossover, single-center clinical trial. An endosonographer evaluated adequacy on gross visual inspection and identified whitish specimen sampling sites with and without the BLS according to a randomization sequence in the first and second passes with a 25-G needle. On cytological evaluation, the presence of well-defined pancreatic ductal epithelium was evaluated by a cytopathologist who was blinded to any clinical information. RESULTS: A total of 80 consecutive patients were eligible during the study period. Adequacy was observed for 52 specimens (65%) with the BLS and 54 (68%) without the BLS (p=0.88). In assessment of specimen adequacy on gross examination, only fair agreement was observed both with and without BLS (kappa score 0.40 and 0.29, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The BLS did not influence the ability to identify specimen sampling sites or reliable assessment of specimen site adequacy using gross visual inspection.
Biopsy, Fine-Needle ; Cross-Over Studies ; Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle Aspiration ; Endosonography ; Epithelium ; Glass ; Humans ; Needles ; Pancreatic Ducts ; Pancreatic Neoplasms ; Prospective Studies ; Random Allocation