A real-world study evaluating ultrasound-guided percutaneous non-targeted liver biopsy needle failures and pathology sample-quality assessment in both end-cut and side-notch needles.
Adolescent
Adult
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Biopsy, Needle
/ instrumentation
Equipment Design
Equipment Failure
/ statistics & numerical data
Female
Humans
Image-Guided Biopsy
/ instrumentation
Liver
/ diagnostic imaging
Male
Middle Aged
Reproducibility of Results
Ultrasonography, Interventional
/ methods
Young Adult
Journal
The British journal of radiology
ISSN: 1748-880X
Titre abrégé: Br J Radiol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 0373125
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 Sep 2021
01 Sep 2021
Historique:
pubmed:
22
7
2021
medline:
28
8
2021
entrez:
21
7
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To determine biopsy device failures, causative factors, complications and sample quality of the 16G end-cut Biopince All ultrasound-guided non-targeted liver biopsies between 01/01/2016 and 31/12/2018 were included. Operator, device, number of failures, complications and repeat biopsies were recorded. Histopathology samples were reviewed for all cases of needle failure and a group with no failures, and graded "yes/no" for the presence of steatosis, inflammation and fibrosis. The pathology slides from these cases were reviewed to assess biopsy sample quality (length and portal tract number). The failure and no-failure groups were compared in terms of device type/histology, and sample quality was compared between the needle types. 1004 patients were included. 93.8% ( Ultrasound-guided liver biopsy is safe and sample quality is consistently good when a core >20 mm long is obtained. The end-cut biopsy device generated reliably good quality biopsy samples; however, the needle failure rate was significantly higher than the side-cut needle. Ultrasound-guided liver biopsy specimen quality is consistently good when a core >20 mm long is obtained which can be achieved with a single pass using the 16G Biopince
Identifiants
pubmed: 34289324
doi: 10.1259/bjr.20210475
pmc: PMC9327755
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
20210475Références
N Engl J Med. 2001 Feb 15;344(7):495-500
pubmed: 11172192
Hepatology. 2009 Mar;49(3):1017-44
pubmed: 19243014
J Hepatol. 2003 Aug;39(2):239-44
pubmed: 12873821
Hepatology. 2000 Sep;32(3):477-81
pubmed: 10960438
Br J Radiol. 2017 Dec;90(1080):20170397
pubmed: 28972801
J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2010 Mar;21(3):357-61
pubmed: 20133155
Liver Int. 2007 Nov;27(9):1166-73
pubmed: 17919227
Radiology. 2012 Dec;265(3):819-31
pubmed: 23175545
Rom J Gastroenterol. 2005 Dec;14(4):379-84
pubmed: 16400355
J Clin Pathol. 2014 May;67(5):415-9
pubmed: 24357440
Gut. 1999 Oct;45 Suppl 4:IV1-IV11
pubmed: 10485854
Am J Gastroenterol. 1996 Jul;91(7):1318-21
pubmed: 8677986
Gut. 2020 Aug;69(8):1382-1403
pubmed: 32467090
Diagn Interv Radiol. 2019 Jan;25(1):71-80
pubmed: 30644369
Gastroenterology. 2015 Nov;149(6):1305-8
pubmed: 26409177
J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2003 Sep;14(9 Pt 2):S199-202
pubmed: 14514818
Cancer Imaging. 2006 Jun 08;6:43-50
pubmed: 16766268
J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2009 May;24(5):792-9
pubmed: 19220661
Curr Gastroenterol Rep. 2004 Feb;6(1):30-6
pubmed: 14720451
Dig Dis Sci. 1998 Jan;43(1):46-50
pubmed: 9508534