Journal of Veterinary Clinics (한국임상수의학회지)

The Korean Society of Veterinary Clinics (한국임상수의학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Effect of Endoscopic Forceps on the Quality of Duodenal Mucosal Biopsy in Healthy Cats

고양이 십이지장 점막 생검 시 내시경 생검 겸자가 조직의 질에 미치는 영향에 관한 연구

  • Won, Jin-Hee (Research Institute of Natural Science, College of Veterinary Medicine, Gyeongsang National University) ;
  • Hong, Il-Hwa (Research Institute of Natural Science, College of Veterinary Medicine, Gyeongsang National University) ;
  • Jang, Hyo-Mi (Research Institute of Natural Science, College of Veterinary Medicine, Gyeongsang National University) ;
  • Eom, Na-Young (Research Institute of Natural Science, College of Veterinary Medicine, Gyeongsang National University) ;
  • Jee, Cho-Hee (Research Institute of Natural Science, College of Veterinary Medicine, Gyeongsang National University) ;
  • Jung, Hae-Won (Research Institute of Natural Science, College of Veterinary Medicine, Gyeongsang National University) ;
  • Kang, Byeong-Teck (Laboratory of Veterinary Dermatology and Neurology, College of Veterinary Medicine, Chungbuk National University) ;
  • Jeong, Dong Wook (Family Medicine Clinic and Research Institute of Convergence of Biomedical Science and Technology, Pusan National University Yangsan Hospital, Pusan National University School of Medicine) ;
  • Jung, Dong-In (Research Institute of Natural Science, College of Veterinary Medicine, Gyeongsang National University)
  • 원진희 (경상대학교 수의과대학 기초과학연구소) ;
  • 홍일화 (경상대학교 수의과대학 기초과학연구소) ;
  • 장효미 (경상대학교 수의과대학 기초과학연구소) ;
  • 엄나영 (경상대학교 수의과대학 기초과학연구소) ;
  • 지초희 (경상대학교 수의과대학 기초과학연구소) ;
  • 정해원 (경상대학교 수의과대학 기초과학연구소) ;
  • 강병택 (충북대학교 수의과대학) ;
  • 정동욱 (양산부산대학교병원 가정의학과) ;
  • 정동인 (경상대학교 수의과대학 기초과학연구소)
  • Accepted : 2015.04.09
  • Published : 2015.04.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Based on the results of previous studies, endoscopic biopsy sample's quality has a major impact on its adequacy for histopathology, and that the nature of the biopsy forceps can influence the specimen quality. The present study compared the effects of three different types of endoscopic biopsy forceps and two different operators on sample quality and adequacy for histopathology in three healthy cats. Every biopsy was performed between the major papilla and caudal duodenal flexure, and each operator performed five biopsies with each type of forceps on each cat, for a total of 90 biopsies. One pathologist evaluated the quality and adequacy of the obtained samples. Biopsies performed with large-cup forceps provided heavier and longer samples than the standard round forceps. With the same size forceps, the presence of alligator teeth had no effect on sample quality or adequacy for histopathological examination and assessment. Based on the results of the present study, although the standard round forceps could be used to obtain adequate samples for histopathology, large-cup forceps such as the standard oval and alligator jaw type have the advantage of obtaining high quality endoscopic samples.

본 연구는 고양이 십이지장에서 내시경적 조직 생검 시 사용된 다양한 겸자의 특징에 따른 조직의 질과 조직병리학적 적합성에 대해 평가하였다. 이러한 내시경용 생검 겸자에 따른 조직의 질과 적합성에 대한 연구는 인의에서 다수 보고되었으며 최근 개에서의 연구가 보고되었으나 고양이에서의 연구는 진행되지 않았다. 따라서 본 연구에서는 기존의 연구 결과와 고양이에서의 결과를 비교하여 그 차이를 확인하고자 하였다. 총 3마리의 건강한 고양이의 십이지장에서 3가지 종류의 생검 겸자를 사용하여 두 명의 실험자가 각각의 겸자 당 5 개씩의 시료를 채취하여 총 90개의 십이지장 점막 조직을 획득하였다. 획득한 조직은 각각 무게와 길이, 깊이, 부서진 인공구조, 조직병리학적 적합성에 대해 평가하였다. 내시경 생검용 겸자에 의한 조직의 질은 컵이 큰 겸자의 경우 더 무겁고 긴 조직을 얻는데 효과적인 결과를 얻었으며 이는 기존의 사람과 개에서의 연구와 비슷하다. 그러나 조직의 깊이와 부서진 인공구조, 특히 조직병리학적 적합성에 있어서는 겸자의 컵 크기나 모양에 따른 차이가 나타나지 않았으며 이는 기존의 연구와 다른 점이다. 하지만 조직학적 적합성이 있다고 평가된 조직들은 길이가 길고 인공구조가 적게 나타났으며 이러한 조직의 질은 겸자의 종류에 따른 차이를 보였다. 따라서 겸자의 종류는 조직의 질에 영향을 미치며 이는 간접적으로 조직학적 적합성과 관련이 있을 것으로 생각된다. 이를 바탕으로 고양이의 내시경적 생검 시, 비록 작은 컵의 겸자로도 조직병리학적으로 적합한 조직을 얻을 수 있지만 더 나은 질의 조직을 얻기 위해서 큰 컵의 겸자를 적용하는 것이 효과적인 것으로 생각된다.

Keywords

References

  1. Abudayyeh S, Hoffman J, El-Zimaity HT, Graham DY. Prospective, randomized, pathologist-blinded study of disposable alligator-jaw biopsy forceps for gastric mucosal biopsy. Dig Liver Dis 2009; 41: 340-344. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dld.2008.07.317
  2. Bernstein DE, Barkin JS, Reiner DK, Lubin J, Phillips RS, Grauer L. Standard biopsy forceps versus large-capacity forceps with and without needle. Gastrointest Endosc 1995; 41: 573-576. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0016-5107(95)70193-1
  3. Casamian-Sorrosal D, Willard MD, Murray JK, Hall EJ, Taylor SS, Day MJ. Comparison of histopathologic findings in biopsies from the duodenum and ileum of dogs with enteropathy. J Vet Intern Med 2010; 24: 80-83. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1939-1676.2009.0427.x
  4. Chu KM YS, Wong WM. A prospective comparison of performance of biopsy forceps used in single passage with multiple bites during upper endoscopy. Endoscopy 2003: 338-342.
  5. Danesh BJ, Burke M, Newman J, Aylott A, Whitfield P, Cotton PB. 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. https://doi.org/10.1136/gut.26.3.227
  6. Elmunzer BJ, Higgins PD, Kwon YM, Golembeski C, Greenson JK, Korsnes SJ, Elta GH. Jumbo forceps are superior to standard large-capacity forceps in obtaining diagnostically adequate inflammatory bowel disease surveillance biopsy specimens. Gastrointest Endosc 2008; 68: 273-278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2007.11.023
  7. Golden DL. Gastrointestinal endoscopic biopsy techniques. Semin Vet Med Surg (Small Anim) 1993; 8: 239-244.
  8. Goutal-Landry CM, Mansell J, Ryan KA, Gaschen FP. Effect of endoscopic forceps on quality of duodenal mucosal biopsy in healthy dogs. J Vet Intern Med 2013; 27: 456-461. https://doi.org/10.1111/jvim.12085
  9. Kozarek RA, Attia FM, Sumida SE, Raltz SL, Roach SK, Schembre DB, Brandabur JJ, Ball TJ, Gluck M, Jiranek GC, Patterson DJ, Bredfeldt JE, Gelfand M, McCormick SE, Drajpuch DB, Moran DK. Reusable biopsy forceps: a prospective evaluation of cleaning, function, adequacy of tissue specimen, and durability. Gastrointest Endosc 2001; 53: 747-750. https://doi.org/10.1067/mge.2001.114055
  10. Mansell J, Willard MD. Biopsy of the gastrointestinal tract. Vet Clin North Am Small Anim Pract 2003; 33: 1099-1116. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0195-5616(03)00056-1
  11. Mee AS, Burke M, Vallon AG, Newman J, Cotton PB. Small bowel biopsy for malabsorption: comparison of the diagnostic adequacy of endoscopic forceps and capsule biopsy specimens. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed) 1985; 291: 769-772. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.291.6498.769
  12. Neiger R, Robertson E, Stengel C. Gastrointestinal endoscopy in the cat: diagnostics and therapeutics. J Feline Med Surg 2013; 15: 993-1005. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098612X13508249
  13. Padda S, Shah I, Ramirez FC. Adequacy of mucosal sampling with the "two-bite" forceps technique: a prospective, randomized, blinded study. Gastrointest Endosc 2003; 57: 170-173. https://doi.org/10.1067/mge.2003.75
  14. Siegel M, Barkin JS, Rogers AI, Thomsen S, Clark R. Gastric biopsy: a comparison of biopsy forceps. Gastrointest Endosc 1983; 29: 35-36. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0016-5107(83)72498-3
  15. Spillmann T. Intestinal Endoscopy. In: Canine & Feline Gastroenterology, 1st ed. St. Louis: Elsevier. 2013:282.
  16. Stengel C, Robertson E, Neiger R. Gastrointestinal endoscopy in the cat: equipment, techniques and normal findings. J Feline Med Surg 2013; 15: 977-991. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098612X13508248
  17. Tams TR, Webb CB. Endoscopic Examination of the Small Intestine. In: Small Animal Endoscopy, 3rd ed. St. Louis: Elsevier. 2011:173-180.
  18. Turk DJ, Kozarek RA, Botoman VA, Patterson DJ, Ball TJ. Disposable endoscopic biopsy forceps: comparison with standard forceps of sample size and adequacy of specimen. J Clin Gastroenterol 1991; 13: 76-78. https://doi.org/10.1097/00004836-199102000-00016
  19. Washabau RJ, Day MJ, Willard MD, Hall EJ, Jergens AE, Mansell J, Minami T, Bilzer TW. Endoscopic, biopsy, and histopathologic guidelines for the evaluation of gastrointestinal inflammation in companion animals. J Vet Intern Med 2010; 24: 10-26. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1939-1676.2009.0443.x
  20. Willard MD, Lovering SL, Cohen ND, Weeks BR. Quality of tissue specimens obtained endoscopically from the duodenum of dogs and cats. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2001; 219: 474-479. https://doi.org/10.2460/javma.2001.219.474
  21. Willard MD, Mansell J, Fosgate GT, Gualtieri M, Olivero D, Lecoindre P, Twedt DC, Collett MG, Day MJ, Hall EJ, Jergens AE, Simpson JW, Else RW, Washabau RJ. Effect of sample quality on the sensitivity of endoscopic biopsy for detecting gastric and duodenal lesions in dogs and cats. J Vet Intern Med 2008; 22: 1084-1089. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1939-1676.2008.0149.x
  22. Woods KL, Anand BS, Cole RA, Osato MS, Genta RM, Malaty H, Gurer IE, Rossi DD. Influence of endoscopic biopsy forceps characteristics on tissue specimens: results of a prospective randomized study. Gastrointest Endosc 1999; 49: 177-183. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0016-5107(99)70483-9
  23. 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0016-5107(90)71069-3