Skip to main content

View full-text article in PMC

. 2019 Jul 10;52(4):347–352. doi: 10.5946/ce.2019.005

Table 2.

Summary of Studies Comparing Available Endoscopic Ultrasound Needles

Study	Design	Number, type of specimens	EUS needle type	Number of CPTs				Specimen length (mm)
Sey et al. (2016) [7]	Cross-sectional	75 humans	Procore 19 G	PC		QC		PC		QC
Sey et al. (2016) [7]	Cross-sectional	75 humans	Quick Core 19 G Tru-Cut	7.8		3.2		24.8		10.1
Stavropoulos et al. (2012) [9]	Prospective	22 humans	Echotip 19 G	9 (1–73)^a)				36.9 (2–184.6)^a)
Diehl et al. (2015) [10]	Prospective, non-randomized	110 humans	19 G Expect or Expect Flexible	14 (0–68)^a)				38 (0–203)^a)
Schulman et al. (2017) [11]	Randomized	2 cadaveric livers	SharkCore 19 G	PC	Exp	Shar19	Shar22	PC	Exp	Shar19	Shar22
			Expect 19 G	1.7	1.9	6.2	3.8	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
			ProCore 19 G
			SharkCore 22 G
Lee et al. (2017) [12]	Nonrandomized	2 cadaveric livers	EchoTip 19 G	Echo	EZ2	Exp	Shark	Echo	EZ2	Exp	shark
			Procore 19 G	3.33	4	4.42	8.83	4.73	2.98	4.26	5.07
			EZ Shot 2 19 G
			Expect Slimline 19 G
			SharkCore 19 G

CPT, complete portal tract; EUS, endoscopic ultrasound; N/A, not available; PC, ProCore; QC, QuickCore.

^a)

median (range).