{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.0204211869814933, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0012763241863433313, 'mean_word_length': 5.373983739837398, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Rapid On-site Evaluation (ROSE) in Capillary Pull Versus Suction Biopsy Technique With Endobronchial Ultrasound-transbronchial Needle Aspiration (EBUS-TBNA).

BACKGROUND
Suction and capillary pull are 2 biopsy techniques used in endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA). Although these techniques have been shown to perform comparably in terms of overall diagnostic yield, we hypothesized that the capillary pull technique would be associated with improved rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) adequacy rates thus allowing for a shorter procedure time.


METHODS
One hundred eighteen patients undergoing EBUS-TBNA for any indication were randomized to suction or capillary pull techniques for the first biopsy pass; the technique used for all subsequent passes was based on operator preference and was not recorded. The first pass was subjected to ROSE and an adequacy assessment was given. ROSE slides were also scored for cellularity of diagnostic/lesional cells and blood contamination. The overall procedure time was also recorded.


RESULTS
There were no significant differences between suction and capillary pull techniques in terms of ROSE adequacy rates. Cellularity of diagnostic/lesional cells and blood contamination scores were also comparable. There was no significant difference in procedure time for the 2 techniques.


CONCLUSION
This study suggests no differences in ROSE outcomes between suction and capillary pull techniques in EBUS-TBNA. The technique used should therefore be left to the discretion of the operator.