A Prospective Comparison of Performance of Biopsy Forceps Used in Single Passage with Multiple Bites During Upper Endoscopy

Background and Study Aims: A single biopsy is usually obtained for each passage of a biopsy forceps. It was hypothesized that multiple bites per passage might improve the quantity and quality of tissue obtained, without significant artifacts. This hypothesis was tested in a prospective, pathologist-blinded study using different forceps.
Patients and Methods: Forty consecutive patients who underwent elective upper endoscopy were included. Five different forceps were used in six different ways, varying in the number of bites taken per passage. Two pathologists, who were blinded to the type of biopsy forceps used, evaluated the specimens according to the parameters of maximum weight (mg), size of largest fragment (mm), depth, squash artifact, adequacy, and overall rating.

Results: A total of 240 biopsy specimens were obtained. The Microvasive Multibite and Megabite forceps obtained specimens with the maximum weight (P < 0.05) and the largest size (P < 0.05), respectively. Alligator forceps were able to obtain specimens significantly larger in size than the oval-shaped forceps (P < 0.05). The Olympus FB-24K forceps performed best in both the adequacy score and the overall rating score (P < 0.05).

Conclusions: Forceps with a needle, or the Multibite forceps, allow more biopsies to be taken per passage and improve the quality of tissues obtained. “Needleless” forceps can be used to obtain two samples per passage through the endoscope that are as good as when only one sample is collected. This approach can save time, and causes no significant damage to the biopsy specimens.

References

• 1 Danesh B JZ, Burke M, Newman J. et al . 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
• 2 Woods K L, Anand B S, Cole R A. et al . Influence of endoscopic biopsy forceps characteristics on tissue specimens: result of a prospective randomized study.  Gastrointest Endosc. 1999;  49 177-183
• 3 Bernstein D E, Barkin J S, Reiner D K. et al . Standard biopsy forceps versus large-capacity forceps with and without needle.  Gastrointest Endosc. 1995;  41 573-576
• 4 Kaneko E, Kumagai J, Honda N. et al . Evaluation of the new giant-biopsy forceps in the diagnosis of mucosal and submucosal gastric lesions.  Endoscopy. 1983;  15 322-326
• 5 Kozarek R A, Raltz S L, Merriam L D, Sumida S E. Disposable versus reusable biopsy forceps: a prospective evaluation of costs.  Gastrointest Endosc. 1996;  43 10-13
• 6 Yang R, Naritoku W, Laine L. Prospective, randomized comparison of disposable and reusable biopsy forceps in gastrointestinal endoscopy.  Gastrointest Endosc. 1994;  40 671-674
• 7 Yang R, Vuitch F, Wright K, McCarthy J. Adequacy of disposable biopsy forceps for gastrointestinal endoscopy: a direct comparison with reusable forceps.  Gastrointest Endosc. 1990;  36 379-381
• 8 Turk D J, Kozarek R A, Botoman V A. et al . Disposable endoscopic biopsy forceps: comparison with standard forceps of sample size and adequacy of specimen.  J Clin Gastroenterol. 1991;  13 76-78
• 9 Tytgat G NJ, Ignacio J G. Technicalities of endoscopic biopsy.  Endoscopy. 1995;  27 683-688
• 10 Levine D S, Reid B J. Endoscopic biopsy technique for acquiring larger mucosal samples.  Gastrointest Endosc. 1991;  37 332-337
• 11 Fantin A C, Neuweiler J, Binek J S. et al . Diagnostic quality of biopsy specimens: comparison between a conventional biopsy forceps and Multibite forceps.  Gastrointest Endosc. 2001;  54 600-604