Background: It is still unclear whether endoscopic ultrasound liver biopsy (EUS-LB) determines superior results in comparison to percutaneous liver biopsy (PC-LB). Aim of this meta-analysis was to compare the diagnostic outcomes of these two techniques. Research Design and Methods: Literature search was conducted through June 2021 and identified 7 studies. The primary outcome was total length of specimen. Results were expressed as odds ratio (OR) or mean difference along with 95% confidence interval (CI). Results: Pooled total length of specimen was 29.9 mm (95% CI 24.1–35.7) in the EUS-LB group and 29.7 mm (95% CI 27.1–32.2) in the PC-LB group, with no difference between the two approaches (mean difference −0.35 mm, 95% CI −5.31 to 4.61; p = 0.89), although sensitivity analysis restricted to higher quality studies found a superior performance of PC-LB over EUS-LB. Pooled number of complete portal tracts was 12.9 (7.7–18) in the EUS-LB and 14.4 (10.7–18) in the PC-LB group, with no difference in direct comparison (mean difference −1.58, −5.98 to 2.81; p = 0.48). No difference between the two groups was observed in terms of severe adverse event rate (OR 1.11, 0.11–11.03; p = 0.93). Conclusion: EUS-LB and PC-LB are comparable in terms of diagnostic performance and safety profile.

Facciorusso A., Crino S.F., Ramai D., Fabbri C., Mangiavillano B., Lisotti A., et al. (2022). Diagnostic yield of endoscopic ultrasound-guided liver biopsy in comparison to percutaneous liver biopsy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. EXPERT REVIEW OF GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY, 16(1), 51-57 [10.1080/17474124.2022.2020645].

Diagnostic yield of endoscopic ultrasound-guided liver biopsy in comparison to percutaneous liver biopsy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Facciorusso A.;Lisotti A.;Fusaroli P.
2022

Abstract

Background: It is still unclear whether endoscopic ultrasound liver biopsy (EUS-LB) determines superior results in comparison to percutaneous liver biopsy (PC-LB). Aim of this meta-analysis was to compare the diagnostic outcomes of these two techniques. Research Design and Methods: Literature search was conducted through June 2021 and identified 7 studies. The primary outcome was total length of specimen. Results were expressed as odds ratio (OR) or mean difference along with 95% confidence interval (CI). Results: Pooled total length of specimen was 29.9 mm (95% CI 24.1–35.7) in the EUS-LB group and 29.7 mm (95% CI 27.1–32.2) in the PC-LB group, with no difference between the two approaches (mean difference −0.35 mm, 95% CI −5.31 to 4.61; p = 0.89), although sensitivity analysis restricted to higher quality studies found a superior performance of PC-LB over EUS-LB. Pooled number of complete portal tracts was 12.9 (7.7–18) in the EUS-LB and 14.4 (10.7–18) in the PC-LB group, with no difference in direct comparison (mean difference −1.58, −5.98 to 2.81; p = 0.48). No difference between the two groups was observed in terms of severe adverse event rate (OR 1.11, 0.11–11.03; p = 0.93). Conclusion: EUS-LB and PC-LB are comparable in terms of diagnostic performance and safety profile.
2022
Facciorusso A., Crino S.F., Ramai D., Fabbri C., Mangiavillano B., Lisotti A., et al. (2022). Diagnostic yield of endoscopic ultrasound-guided liver biopsy in comparison to percutaneous liver biopsy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. EXPERT REVIEW OF GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY, 16(1), 51-57 [10.1080/17474124.2022.2020645].
Facciorusso A.; Crino S.F.; Ramai D.; Fabbri C.; Mangiavillano B.; Lisotti A.; Muscatiello N.; Cotsoglou C.; Fusaroli P.
File in questo prodotto:
Eventuali allegati, non sono esposti

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11585/902172
 Attenzione

Attenzione! I dati visualizzati non sono stati sottoposti a validazione da parte dell'ateneo

Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 3
  • Scopus 12
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 15
social impact