摘要
AIM: To ascertain fine needle aspiration(FNA) tech-niques by endosonographers with varying levels of ex-perience and environments.METHODS: A survey study was performed on United States based endosonographers. The subjects complet-ed an anonymous online electronic survey. The main outcome measurements were differences in needle choice, FNA technique, and clinical decision making among endosonographers and how this relates to years in practice, volume of EUS-FNA procedures, and prac-tice environment.RESULTS: A total of 210(30.8%) endosonographers completed the survey. Just over half(51.4%) identified themselves as academic/university-based practitioners. The vast majority of respondents(77.1%) identified themselves as high-volume endoscopic ultrasound(EUS)(> 150 EUS/year) and high-volume FNA(> 75 FNA/year) performers(73.3). If final cytology is non-diagnostic, high-volume EUS physicians were more likely than low volume physicians to repeat FNA with a core needle(60.5% vs 31.2%; P = 0.0004), and low volume physicians were more likely to refer patients for either surgical or percutaneous biopsy,(33.4% vs 4.9%, P < 0.0001). Academic physicians were more likely to repeat FNA with a core needle(66.7%) compared to community physicians(40.2%, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: There is significant variation in EUS-FNA practices among United States endosonographers. Differences appear to be related to EUS volume and practice environment.
AIM: To ascertain fine needle aspiration(FNA) tech-niques by endosonographers with varying levels of ex-perience and environments.METHODS: A survey study was performed on United States based endosonographers. The subjects complet-ed an anonymous online electronic survey. The main outcome measurements were differences in needle choice, FNA technique, and clinical decision making among endosonographers and how this relates to years in practice, volume of EUS-FNA procedures, and prac-tice environment.RESULTS: A total of 210(30.8%) endosonographers completed the survey. Just over half(51.4%) identified themselves as academic/university-based practitioners. The vast majority of respondents(77.1%) identified themselves as high-volume endoscopic ultrasound(EUS)(> 150 EUS/year) and high-volume FNA(> 75 FNA/year) performers(73.3). If final cytology is non-diagnostic, high-volume EUS physicians were more likely than low volume physicians to repeat FNA with a core needle(60.5% vs 31.2%; P = 0.0004), and low volume physicians were more likely to refer patients for either surgical or percutaneous biopsy,(33.4% vs 4.9%, P < 0.0001). Academic physicians were more likely to repeat FNA with a core needle(66.7%) compared to community physicians(40.2%, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: There is significant variation in EUS-FNA practices among United States endosonographers. Differences appear to be related to EUS volume and practice environment.
