Abstract
The efficacy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided liver biopsy (EUS-LB) compared to percutaneous liver biopsy (PC-LB) remains uncertain. Our data consist of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing EUS-LB to PC-LB, found through a literature search via PubMed/Medline and Embase. The primary outcome was sample adequacy, whereas secondary outcomes were longest and total lengths of tissue specimens, diagnostic accuracy, and number of complete portal tracts (CPTs). Sample adequacy did not significantly differ between EUS-LB and PC-LB (risk ratio [RR] 1.18; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.58-2.38; p = 0.65), with very low evidence quality and inadequate sample size as per trial sequential analysis (TSA). The two techniques were equivalent with respect to diagnostic accuracy (RR: 1; CI: 0.95-1.05; p = 0.88), mean number of complete portal tracts (mean difference: 2.29, -4.08 to 8.66; p = 0.48), and total specimen length (mean difference: -0.51, -20.92 to 19.9; p = 0.96). The mean maximum specimen length was significantly longer in the PC-LB group (mean difference: -3.11, -5.51 to -0.71; p = 0.01), and TSA showed that the required information size was reached. EUS-LB and PC-LB are comparable in terms of diagnostic performance although PC-LB provides longer non-fragmented specimens.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
