Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Digestive Diseases and Sciences 8/2016

01-08-2016 | Original Article

Comparison of Performance Characteristics of Oval Cup Forceps Versus Serrated Jaw Forceps in Gastric Biopsy

Authors: Daniel A. Sussman, Amar R. Deshpande, Uday Shankar, Jodie A. Barkin, Ana Maria Medina, Robert J. Poppiti, Luigi X. Cubeddu, Jamie S. Barkin

Published in: Digestive Diseases and Sciences | Issue 8/2016

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Obtaining quality endoscopic biopsy specimens is vital in making successful histological diagnoses. The influence of forceps cup shape and size on quality of biopsy specimens is unclear.

Aim

To identify whether oval cup or two different serrated jaw biopsy forceps could obtain specimens of superior size. Secondary endpoints were tissue adequacy, depth of tissue acquisition, and crush artifact.

Methods

A single-center, prospective, pathologist-masked, randomized controlled trial was performed. In total 136 patients with a clinical indication for esophagogastroduodenoscopy with biopsy were randomized to receive serial biopsies with a large-capacity serrated forceps with jaw diameter 2.2 mm (SER1) and either a large-capacity oval forceps with jaw diameter 2.4 mm (OVL) or large-capacity serrated biopsy forceps with jaw diameter 2.4 mm (SER2) in two parallel groups.

Results

SER2 provided significantly larger specimens than did the other forceps (SER2 3.26 ± 1.09 vs. SER1 2.92 ± 0.88 vs. OVL 2.92 ± 0.76; p = 0.026), with an average size difference of 0.34 mm greater with SER2 compared to SER1 and OVL. OVL provided significantly deeper biopsies compared to SER1 and SER2 (p = 0.02), with 31 % of OVL biopsies reaching the submucosa. SER2 had significantly less crush artifact than SER1 and OVL (p < 0.0001).

Conclusion

Serrated forceps provided larger samples compared to oval jaw forceps of the same size, with SER2 providing the largest specimen size. Oval cup forceps had deeper penetration of epithelium, while the larger jaw diameter serrated jaw forceps had less crush artifact. All three forceps provided specimens adequate for diagnostic purposes.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Hatfield AR, Slavin G, Segal AW, Levi AJ. Importance of the site of endoscopic gastric biopsy in ulcerating lesions of the stomach. Gut. 1975;16:884–886.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Hatfield AR, Slavin G, Segal AW, Levi AJ. Importance of the site of endoscopic gastric biopsy in ulcerating lesions of the stomach. Gut. 1975;16:884–886.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
2.
go back to reference Landres RT, Strum WB. Endoscopic techniques in the diagnosis of gastric adenocarcinoma. Gastrointest Endosc. 1977;23:203–205.CrossRefPubMed Landres RT, Strum WB. Endoscopic techniques in the diagnosis of gastric adenocarcinoma. Gastrointest Endosc. 1977;23:203–205.CrossRefPubMed
3.
go back to reference Sancho-Poch FJ, Balanzo J, Ocana J, et al. An evaluation of gastric biopsy in the diagnosis of gastric cancer. Gastrointest Endosc. 1978;24:281–282.CrossRefPubMed Sancho-Poch FJ, Balanzo J, Ocana J, et al. An evaluation of gastric biopsy in the diagnosis of gastric cancer. Gastrointest Endosc. 1978;24:281–282.CrossRefPubMed
4.
go back to reference Winawer SJ, Posner G, Lightdale CJ, Sherlock P, Melamed M, Fortner JG. Endoscopic diagnosis of advanced gastric cancer. Factors influencing yield. Gastroenterology. 1975;69:1183–1187.PubMed Winawer SJ, Posner G, Lightdale CJ, Sherlock P, Melamed M, Fortner JG. Endoscopic diagnosis of advanced gastric cancer. Factors influencing yield. Gastroenterology. 1975;69:1183–1187.PubMed
5.
go back to reference Danesh BJ, Burke M, Newman J, Aylott A, Whitfield P, Cotton PB. Comparison of weight, depth, and diagnostic adequacy of specimens obtained with 16 different biopsy forceps designed for upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. Gut. 1985;26:227–231.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Danesh BJ, Burke M, Newman J, Aylott A, Whitfield P, Cotton PB. Comparison of weight, depth, and diagnostic adequacy of specimens obtained with 16 different biopsy forceps designed for upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. Gut. 1985;26:227–231.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
6.
go back to reference Walter T, Chesnay AL, Dumortier J, et al. Biopsy specimens obtained with small-caliber endoscopes have comparable diagnostic performances than those obtained with conventional endoscopes: a prospective study on 1335 specimens. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2010;44:12–17.CrossRefPubMed Walter T, Chesnay AL, Dumortier J, et al. Biopsy specimens obtained with small-caliber endoscopes have comparable diagnostic performances than those obtained with conventional endoscopes: a prospective study on 1335 specimens. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2010;44:12–17.CrossRefPubMed
7.
go back to reference Siegel M, Barkin JS, Rogers AI, Thomsen S, Clark R. Gastric biopsy: a comparison of biopsy forceps. Gastrointest Endosc. 1983;29:35–36.CrossRefPubMed Siegel M, Barkin JS, Rogers AI, Thomsen S, Clark R. Gastric biopsy: a comparison of biopsy forceps. Gastrointest Endosc. 1983;29:35–36.CrossRefPubMed
8.
go back to reference Elmunzer BJ, Higgins PD, Kwon YM, et al. Jumbo forceps are superior to standard large-capacity forceps in obtaining diagnostically adequate inflammatory bowel disease surveillance biopsy specimens. Gastrointest Endosc. 2008;68:273–278; quiz 334, 336. Elmunzer BJ, Higgins PD, Kwon YM, et al. Jumbo forceps are superior to standard large-capacity forceps in obtaining diagnostically adequate inflammatory bowel disease surveillance biopsy specimens. Gastrointest Endosc. 2008;68:273–278; quiz 334, 336.
9.
go back to reference Komanduri S, Swanson G, Keefer L, Jakate S. Use of a new jumbo forceps improves tissue acquisition of Barrett’s esophagus surveillance biopsies. Gastrointest Endosc. 2009;70:1072.e1–1078.e1.CrossRef Komanduri S, Swanson G, Keefer L, Jakate S. Use of a new jumbo forceps improves tissue acquisition of Barrett’s esophagus surveillance biopsies. Gastrointest Endosc. 2009;70:1072.e1–1078.e1.CrossRef
10.
go back to reference Draganov PV, Chang MN, Alkhasawneh A, et al. Randomized, controlled trial of standard, large-capacity versus jumbo biopsy forceps for polypectomy of small, sessile, colorectal polyps. Gastrointest Endosc. 2012;75:118–126.CrossRefPubMed Draganov PV, Chang MN, Alkhasawneh A, et al. Randomized, controlled trial of standard, large-capacity versus jumbo biopsy forceps for polypectomy of small, sessile, colorectal polyps. Gastrointest Endosc. 2012;75:118–126.CrossRefPubMed
11.
go back to reference Bernstein DE, Barkin JS, Reiner DK, Lubin J, Phillips RS, Grauer L. Standard biopsy forceps versus large-capacity forceps with and without needle. Gastrointest Endosc. 1995;41:573–576.CrossRefPubMed Bernstein DE, Barkin JS, Reiner DK, Lubin J, Phillips RS, Grauer L. Standard biopsy forceps versus large-capacity forceps with and without needle. Gastrointest Endosc. 1995;41:573–576.CrossRefPubMed
12.
go back to reference Abudayyeh S, Hoffman J, El-Zimaity HT, Graham DY. Prospective, randomized, pathologist-blinded study of disposable alligator-jaw biopsy forceps for gastric mucosal biopsy. Dig Liver Dis. 2009;41:340–344.CrossRefPubMed Abudayyeh S, Hoffman J, El-Zimaity HT, Graham DY. Prospective, randomized, pathologist-blinded study of disposable alligator-jaw biopsy forceps for gastric mucosal biopsy. Dig Liver Dis. 2009;41:340–344.CrossRefPubMed
13.
go back to reference Woods KL, Anand BS, Cole RA, et al. Influence of endoscopic biopsy forceps characteristics on tissue specimens: results of a prospective randomized study. Gastrointest Endosc. 1999;49:177–183.CrossRefPubMed Woods KL, Anand BS, Cole RA, et al. Influence of endoscopic biopsy forceps characteristics on tissue specimens: results of a prospective randomized study. Gastrointest Endosc. 1999;49:177–183.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Comparison of Performance Characteristics of Oval Cup Forceps Versus Serrated Jaw Forceps in Gastric Biopsy
Authors
Daniel A. Sussman
Amar R. Deshpande
Uday Shankar
Jodie A. Barkin
Ana Maria Medina
Robert J. Poppiti
Luigi X. Cubeddu
Jamie S. Barkin
Publication date
01-08-2016
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Digestive Diseases and Sciences / Issue 8/2016
Print ISSN: 0163-2116
Electronic ISSN: 1573-2568
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10620-016-4129-y

Other articles of this Issue 8/2016

Digestive Diseases and Sciences 8/2016 Go to the issue