These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.
Pubmed for Handhelds
PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS
Search MEDLINE/PubMed
Title: Disposable versus reusable biopsy forceps for colorectal epithelial cell proliferation in humans. Author: Sandler RS, Cummings MS, Keku TO, Terse A, Mehta N. Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 2000 Oct; 9(10):1123-5. PubMed ID: 11045798. Abstract: The performance of various measures of rectal mucosal proliferation has been evaluated in the literature, but the performance of the forceps used to obtain the tissue has received little attention. We used data from two large studies of proliferation at a single institution to compare reusable and disposable endoscopic forceps. Endoscopic pinch biopsies were taken 10 cm from the anal verge using either reusable or disposable, oval-cupped, sheathed forceps. The specimens were fixed, embedded, and sectioned, taking care to orient the specimens longitudinally. Five sections were placed on each slide. We determined how many slides did not contain eight scorable crypts (inadequate) and how many sections were necessary to identify eight complete crypts. There were 395 subjects who had biopsies taken with reusable forceps and 185 subjects who had biopsies taken with disposable forceps. The specimens were inadequate in 27.6% of the reusable forceps specimens versus 2.7% of the disposable forceps (P < 0.0001). The mean number of tissue sections necessary to identify eight scorable crypts for the reusable forceps was 3.82 (SD, 0.87) compared with 3.17 (SD, 0.83) for disposable forceps (P = 0.0001). The specimens taken with the disposable forceps were better, probably because the forceps were sharper. We believe that the better quality of the specimens and the sterility justify the higher cost of disposable forceps. We would urge investigators in proliferation studies to evaluate the biopsy equipment as carefully as they evaluate other aspects of their methods.[Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]