You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
PostScript
Letter
Radiology-guided percutaneous approach is superior to EUS for performing liver biopsies
  1. Kaveh Hajifathalian1,
  2. Kenneth J Chang2,
  3. Reem Z Sharaiha1
  1. 1 Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, New York, USA
  2. 2 H. H. Chao Comprehensive Digestive Disease Center, University of California Irvine Medical Center, Orange, California, USA
  1. Correspondence to Dr Reem Z Sharaiha, Gastroenterology & Hepatology, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, New York, USA; rzs9001{at}med.cornell.edu

https://doi.org/10.1136/gutjnl-2021-324867

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    We read with interest the study titled ‘Radiology-guided percutaneous approach is superior to EUS for performing liver biopsies’ by Bang et al.1 Authors conclude that radiology-guided percutaneous liver biopsy is superior based on comparing the proportion of optimal samples obtained, defined as a sample with length of ≥25 mm and complete portal tracts (CPTs) of ≥11. Further evaluation of the results in this study shows no significant difference between the two methods regarding the number of CPTs, but a significantly higher sample length in the percutaneous group.

    We propose that the results and the conclusions of the study are misleading and not generalisable to clinical practice. The main flaw of this study is the use of a suboptimal technique for performing the endoscopic ultrasound …

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Contributors KH, KC and RZS developed the idea and wrote the letter.

    • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Patient and public involvement Patients and/or the public were not involved in the design, or conduct, or reporting, or dissemination plans of this research.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.