The development of percutaneous renal biopsy in man

Percutaneous Core Biopsy Devices: A Detailed Review and Comparison of Different Needle Designs

ABSTRACT

Percutaneous core-needle biopsy (PCNB) plays a growing and essential role in many medical specialties. Proper and effective use of various PCNB devices requires basic understanding of how they function. Current literature lacks a detailed overview and illustration of needle function and design differences, a potentially valuable reference for users ranging from early trainees to experts who are less familiar with certain devices. This pictorial aims to provide such an overview, using diagrams and magnified photographs to illustrate the intricate components of these devices. Following a brief historical review of biopsy needle technology for context, we emphasize distinctions in design between 2 major classes of PCNB devices (side- and end-cutting devices), focusing on practical implications for how each device is most effectively used. We believe a nuanced understanding of biopsy device function sheds light on certain lingering ambiguities in biopsy practice, such as the optimal needle gauge in organ biopsy, the benefits and risks associated with coaxial technique, the impact of needle selection and technique on bleeding, and the risk of unsuccessful sampling. In a subsequent pictorial, we will draw on the concepts presented here to illustrate examples of biopsy needle failure and how unrecognized needle failure can be an important and often preventable cause of increased biopsy risk and lower tissue yield.

Complications of the percutaneous kidney biopsy

Percutaneous kidney biopsy is an integral part of a nephrologist's practice. It has helped to define nephrology as a subspecialty. When indicated, it is a necessary procedure to help patients, as it allows for diagnostic, prognostic, and therapeutic information. Although very safe, this procedure can give rise to complications, mainly related to bleeding. Since its development in the 1950s, modifications have been made to the approach and the technique, which have improved the diagnostic yield while keeping it a safe procedure. Alterations to the standard approach may be necessary if risk factors for bleeding are present. In addition, obesity, pregnancy, and solitary kidney biopsy are all special circumstances that change the procedure itself or the risk of the procedure. Today, kidney biopsy is a vital procedure for the nephrologist: clinically relevant, safe, and effective.

Interventional nephrology in Brazil: current and future status

The care of chronic kidney disease patients frequently involves many diagnostic and interventional procedures. Most of these procedures are currently performed by radiologists, vascular surgeons, and general surgeons. This has caused fragmented medical care, which has led many nephrologists to introduce a new paradigm, often referred as interventional nephrology (IN). The aim of this study was to establish the extent of involvement of the Brazilian nephrology community with regard to specific IN procedures. From October 2004 to February 2005, questionnaires were sent by e-mail to all 2500 nephrologists throughout Brazil. The enrollment questionnaire was composed of five sections, with questions about renal biopsy, specific training in ultrasonography, peritoneal dialysis access (insertion of peritoneal catheters guided or not by peritoneoscopy), hemodialysis vascular access (ability to place tunneled catheters, construction of arteriovenous fistulas, and other vascular access procedures), and the nephrologist's interest in being trained in IN. A total of 239 nephrologists answered the questionnaire. Only 18% of Brazilian nephrologists perform kidney biopsy guided by ultrasonography assisted by a radiologist. On the other hand, 42% of them reported that this procedure was done without any image support. Most of the respondents (85%) indicated that they were not formally trained to perform renal ultrasonography. When asked about peritoneal dialysis catheter placement, 66% of the respondents reported that they referred their patients to a surgeon for this procedure. The insertion of peritoneal dialysis catheters guided by peritoneoscopy was reported by 3% of the respondents. Similar to the results for peritoneal dialysis catheter placement, the majority of the respondents (77%) indicated no training in the insertion of tunneled catheters for temporary hemodialysis. Regarding the interest of nephrologists to participate in an IN program, the great majority (87%) responded that they would like to be trained in these procedures. Most nephrologists are not trained in IN procedures. Therefore, in Brazil, it will be necessary to develop training centers for IN that will allow nephrologists to optimize nephrology care.

Percutaneous renal biopsy

Percutaneous renal biopsy (PRB) is an integral part of the clinical practice of nephrology. It is essential in the diagnosis of glomerular, vascular, and tubulointerstitial diseases of the kidney, providing information that is invaluable in prognosis and patient management. The use of real-time ultrasound and automated biopsy needles has simplified and improved the success and safety of this procedure. In the recent past, we have seen a shift of the PRB from nephrologists to radiologists and this has raised appropriate concern that loss of this procedure may undermine the nephrologist's status as a subspecialist. We must continue to properly train young nephrologists in the proper technique and value of performing renal biopsy procedures or we stand to lose control of a procedure that was an integral part of the development of our subspecialty.

Outcome of early ambulation after renal biopsy using automated biopsy needle by inexperienced trainees

Percutaneous renal biopsy is a fundamental diagnostic technique. Technical innovations had resulted in an increasing simplicity and safety of the procedure. In this study, 28 kidney biopsies were done using gauge 16 or 18 automated biopsy needle by inexperienced trainees, and patients were allowed full ambulation four hours after biopsy. The trainees failed in 3 (10.7%) attempts. Adequate biopsy was obtained in 89.3%, the mean number of attempts were 2.5 +/- 1.1 (range 1-6/biopsy). The mean length of specimen was 1.5 cm +/- 0.6 (range 0.4-3 cm) and the mean number of glomeruli was 12.8 +/- 7 (range 12-30 glomeruli). Immediately and twenty-four hours after kidney biopsy patients showed no evidence of gross haematuria and ultrasound did not reveal any intrarenal and perirenal haematoma. Microscopic haematuria occurred in 20 (71.4%) patients on the first day and in only 7 (25%) patients the following day. Pain had occurred in 8 (28.5%) patients post-biopsy and in 4 (14.2%) patients on the second day.

Percutaneous native renal biopsy: comparison of a 1.2-mm spring-driven system with a traditional 2-mm hand-driven system

Over the last few years spring-driven mechanical biopsy guns have been introduced for performing renal biopsies. There has been little research done comparing these guns with traditional hand-driven needles in performing biopsies of native kidneys. We wished to compare our experience with the two needle types. We studied retrospectively the results and complication rates of 155 native kidney biopsies. Sixty-nine were performed with hand-driven 14-gauge needles and eighty-six with 18-gauge, spring-driven biopsy guns. Sufficient tissue for diagnosis was obtained in 96% of cases in the hand-driven group compared with 99% in the biopsy gun group (P = NS). Complications occurred in six cases in the hand-driven group compared with one case in the biopsy gun group (P = 0.02). As expected, the reported number of glomeruli per core in the 14-gauge cores was greater than in the 18-gauge cores (16.5 v 6.2, P < 0.01). This was partially offset by the greater number of passes made with the smaller needle. We conclude that similar results can be expected from both biopsy methods, with a possible slight decrease in complications using biopsy guns with smaller needle diameters.

The use of the automatic core biopsy system in percutaneous renal biopsies: a comparative study

We describe our experience with the use of the automatic core biopsy system for percutaneous renal biopsy and compare this with our experience with a standard biopsy needle. Three hundred twenty-three biopsies were performed between June 1983 and January 1993. From June 1983 through October 1990, 232 biopsies were performed with the use of a standard biopsy needle (Tru-cut needle; Travenol Laboratories, Deerfield, IL) and from November 1990 through January 1993, 91 biopsies were conducted with the use of the automatic core biopsy system (Biopty gun and needle; C.R. Bard, Inc, Covington, GA). Biopsies performed prior to January 1990 were reviewed retrospectively, while those performed after January 1990 were reviewed in a prospective manner. The primary indications for renal biopsy were to evaluate proteinuria (48.9%) and renal manifestations of systemic lupus erythematosus (26.0%). The two groups of patients were similar with respect to sex, age, serum creatinine, and coagulation parameters. Material for light microscopy, immunofluorescence microscopy, and electron microscopy was obtained in 98.9%, 98.9%, and 97.8% of cases, respectively, with the use of the automatic core biopsy system, and these values did not differ significantly from those with the use of the standard needle (99.6%, 96.1%, and 97.8%). Significantly more glomeruli were obtained by light microscopy per biopsy specimen with the use of the automatic core biopsy system versus the standard needle (28 +/- 15 and 21 +/- 13, respectively; P < 0.0001). Complications were assessed and separated by severity. Total complications were observed in 13 patients (14.3%) with the automatic core device and in 31 patients (13.4%) with the standard needle.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)