Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2010 Nov;72(5):935-40.
doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2010.07.035.

Randomized comparison of 3 different-sized biopsy forceps for quality of sampling in Barrett's esophagus

Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

Randomized comparison of 3 different-sized biopsy forceps for quality of sampling in Barrett's esophagus

Susana Gonzalez et al. Gastrointest Endosc. 2010 Nov.

Abstract

Background: Several types of forceps are available for use in sampling Barrett's esophagus (BE). Few data exist with regard to biopsy quality for histologic assessment.

Objective: To evaluate sampling quality of 3 different forceps in patients with BE.

Design: Single-center, randomized clinical trial.

Patients: Consecutive patients with BE undergoing upper endoscopy.

Interventions: Patients randomized to have biopsy specimens taken with 1 of 3 types of forceps: standard, large capacity, or jumbo.

Main outcome measurements: Specimen adequacy was defined a priori as a well-oriented biopsy sample 2 mm or greater in diameter and with at least muscularis mucosa present.

Results: A total of 65 patients were enrolled and analyzed (standard forceps, n = 21; large-capacity forceps, n = 21; jumbo forceps, n = 23). Compared with jumbo forceps, a significantly higher proportion of biopsy samples with large-capacity forceps were adequate (37.8% vs 25.2%, P = .002). Of the standard forceps biopsy samples, 31.9% were adequate, which was not significantly different from specimens taken with large-capacity (P = .20) or jumbo (P = .09) forceps. Biopsy specimens taken with jumbo forceps had the largest diameter (median, 3.0 mm vs 2.5 mm [standard] vs 2.8 mm [large capacity]; P = .0001). However, jumbo forceps had the lowest proportion of specimens that were well oriented (overall P = .001).

Limitations: Heterogeneous patient population precluded dysplasia detection analyses.

Conclusions: Our results challenge the requirement of jumbo forceps and therapeutic endoscopes to properly perform the Seattle protocol. We found that standard and large-capacity forceps used with standard upper endoscopes produced biopsy samples at least as adequate as those obtained with jumbo forceps and therapeutic endoscopes in patients with BE.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Photomicrograph of an adequate biopsy sample, defined as a diameter of 2 mm or greater, properly oriented, and containing at least muscularis mucosa (H&E, orig. mag. ×4).
Figure 2
Figure 2
Proportions of biopsy samples adequate for pathologic assessment in patients with BE compared among standard, large-capacity, and jumbo forceps.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Proportions of biopsy samples properly oriented in patients with BE compared among standard, large-capacity, and jumbo forceps.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Median diameter (with interquartile range) of biopsy samples from patients with BE compared among standard, large-capacity, and jumbo forceps. Biopsy specimens taken with jumbo forceps had a significantly larger diameter than those obtained with large-capacity (P = .003) and standard (P = .0001) forceps. There was no difference in the diameter of samples obtained with standard and large-capacity forceps (P = .19).

References

    1. Spechler SJ. Clinical practice. Barrett’s esophagus. N Engl J Med. 2002;346:836–42. - PubMed
    1. Shaheen NJ, Richter JE. Barrett’s oesophagus. Lancet. 2009;373:850–61. - PubMed
    1. Cameron AJ, Zinsmeister AR, Ballard DJ, et al. Prevalence of columnar-lined (Barrett’s) esophagus. Comparison of population-based clinical and autopsy findings. Gastroenterology. 1990;99:918–22. - PubMed
    1. Ronkainen J, Aro P, Storskrubb T, et al. Prevalence of Barrett’s esophagus in the general population: an endoscopic study. Gastroenterology. 2005;129:1825–31. - PubMed
    1. Conio M, Cameron AJ, Romero Y, et al. Secular trends in the epidemiology and outcome of Barrett’s oesophagus in Olmsted County, Minnesota. Gut. 2001;48:304–9. - PMC - PubMed

Publication types