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.

Diagnostic yield of endoscopic ultrasound-guided liver biopsy in comparison to percutaneous liver biopsy: a systematic review and meta-analysis / Facciorusso A.; Crino S.F.; Ramai D.; Fabbri C.; Mangiavillano B.; Lisotti A.; Muscatiello N.; Cotsoglou C.; Fusaroli P.. - In: EXPERT REVIEW OF GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY. - ISSN 1747-4124. - STAMPA. - 16:1(2022), pp. 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
Diagnostic yield of endoscopic ultrasound-guided liver biopsy in comparison to percutaneous liver biopsy: a systematic review and meta-analysis / Facciorusso A.; Crino S.F.; Ramai D.; Fabbri C.; Mangiavillano B.; Lisotti A.; Muscatiello N.; Cotsoglou C.; Fusaroli P.. - In: EXPERT REVIEW OF GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY. - ISSN 1747-4124. - STAMPA. - 16:1(2022), pp. 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 11
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 12
social impact