A Comparison of Three Types of Biopsy Forceps in the Endoscopic Surveillance of Barrett’s Oesophagus

Background and Study Aims: Periodic endoscopic biopsy surveillance is recommended for selected patients with Barrett’s oesophagus. A new angled swing-jaw forceps has become available which is said to facilitate tangential oesophageal biopsy sampling. We examined the size and quality of oesophageal biopsies obtained with the forceps of angled design in comparison with the large cup disposable forceps and the conventional reusable upper gastrointestinal forceps.
Patients and Methods: In this prospective comparative study, three biopsies were taken at each of three levels, using a different design of forceps at each level, in each of 48 patients undergoing endoscopic surveillance. The order in which the forceps were used was randomized. A pathologist assessed the size and quality of each set of biopsies obtained.

Results: The mean biopsy diameter was significantly greater at 3.00 mm with the angled forceps (P < 0.01), in comparison with 2.52 mm with the elliptical forceps and 2.07 mm with the conventional forceps. Fewer biopsies obtained with the angled forceps were graded as inadequate (8.3 %) compared with those obtained using the disposable large cup and conventional forceps (25 % and 22.9 %, respectively).
Conclusions: The design of forceps used influences the size and quality of tissue obtained during endoscopic surveillance of Barrett’s oesophagus. The angled swing-jaw forceps are recommended as the most suitable for this purpose.

References

• 1 van Sandick J W, Bartelsman J FW, van Lanschot J JB. et al . Surveillance of Barrett's oesophagus: physicians' practices and review of current guidelines.  Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2000;  12 111-117
• 2 Spechler S J, Goyal R K. The columnar lined oesophagus, intestinal metaplasia, and Norman Barrett.  Gastroenterology. 1996;  110 614-621
• 3 Falk G W, Ours T M, Richter J E. Practice patterns for surveillance of Barrett’s oesophagus in the United States.  Gastrointest Endosc. 2000;  52 197-203
• 4 Geisinger K R, Sheppard E A, Teot L A, Raab S S. Histopathological practices for esophageal biopsy specimens: survey results and implications for surveillance in patients with Barrett’s esophagus.  Am J Clin Pathol. 1998;  110 219-223
• 5 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
• 6 Woods K L, Anand B S, Cole R A. et al . Influence of endoscopic biopsy forceps characteristics on tissue specimens: results of a prospective randomized study.  Gastrointest Endosc. 1999;  49 177-183
• 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 Levine D S, Reid B J. Endoscopic biopsy technique for acquiring larger mucosal samples.  Gastrointest Endosc. 1991;  37 332-337
• 9 Schafer T W, Hollis-Perry K M, Mondragon R M, Brann O S. An observer blinded prospective randomized comparison of forceps for endoscopic esophageal biopsy.  Gastrointest Endosc. 2002;  55 192-196
• 10 Weinstein W M. Mucosal biopsy techniques and interaction with the pathologist.  Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am. 2000;  10 555-573
• 11 Falk G W, Rice T W, Goldblum J R, Richter J E. Jumbo biopsy forceps protocol still misses unsuspected cancer in Barrett’s oesophagus with high-grade dysplasia.  Gastrointest Endosc. 1999;  49 170-176
• 12 Canto M I, Setrakian S, Willis J. et al . Methylene blue directed biopsies improve detection of intestinal metaplasia and dysplasia in Barrett’s oesophagus.  Gastrointest Endosc. 2000;  51 560-568
• 13 McGarrity T J. Barrett’s oesophagus: the continuing conundrum.  BMJ. 2000;  321 1238-1239