MARATTO

article · QJM

Comparison of Sample Adequacy and Diagnostic Yield of Auto-Aspiration and Manual Aspiration Techniques in Ebus-TBNA

2024Open accessAin Shams University

Abstract

Abstract Background The manual aspiration technique involving high suction force is a new method for EBUS-TBNA. However, its application in EBUS-TBNA has been controversial, and consensus guidelines do not answer this specific question. Aim of the Work This study aimed to compare the diagnostic yield and sample volume of EBUS- TBNA using standard auto-aspiration and novel manual aspiration techniques. Patients and Methods 48 patients with undiagnosed mediastinal lymphadenopathy or centrally located lung tumors were randomized in a 1:1 manner into 2 equal groups regarding aspiration technique: Group 1 underwent EBUS-TBNA with standard auto-aspiration technique, and Group 2 underwent EBUS-TBNA with novel manual aspiration technique. Diagnostic yield and sample volume were compared between the two groups. Results The manual aspiration group showed significantly better diagnostic yield (p = 0.039), with a diagnosis in 91.7% of patients compared to 62.5% in the auto-aspiration group. The manual aspiration group also had a significantly higher sample volume (p < 0.001), with a mean sample volume of 12.80±1.20 mm3 compared to 9.76±1.31 mm3 in the auto-aspiration group. Conclusion The manual suction sampling technique via EBUS-TBNA achieved a higher sample volume and diagnostic yield than the auto suction sampling technique. Therefore, we suggest using manual suction sampling technique in the EBUS-TBNA procedure as it appears to be a promising, easy, no-cost, and safe technique variation. This study adds useful information to the technique of EBUS-TBNA and has potential practice-changing implications.

Research topics

  • Cardiac Arrest and Resuscitation
  • Airway Management and Intubation Techniques
  • Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Research

Read the original research

This page summarises published work. The authoritative version sits with the publisher.

DOI: 10.1093/qjmed/hcae175.168

Is something wrong with this record? Report it or request removal.

Discussion

Discuss this research

Have you built on this work, tried to replicate it, or seen it applied in practice? Share what you know. Verified researchers and MARATTO™ domain experts can open a discussion, and any member can reply. Contributions are reviewed before they appear.

No discussion yet. Open the first thread.