Evaluating the Adequacy of Adults Renal Biopsy Specimens Conducted by Different Methods

Document Type : Original Article(s)

Authors

1 Assistant Professor, Department of Internal Medicine, School of Medicine, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran.

2 Associate Professor, Department of Internal Medicine, School of Medicine, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran.

3 Medical Student, School of Medicine, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran.

Abstract

Background: Renal biopsy has an important role in the evaluation of renal disease. A sufficient amount of renal tissue in biopsy sample is required for pathologic diagnosis. The common method of renal biopsy (Blind method) is used for years. Today, new techniques for renal biopsy have been considered from which the most important biopsy techniques are CT scan-guided biopsy and real time ultrasounography. The purpose of this study was to determine the adequacy of renal biopsy samples of adults prepared by mentioned different methods.Methods: In this descriptive cross-sectional study, data of 788 patients undergoing renal biopsy in Al-Zahra and Noor hospitalsin Isfahan, Iran during 3 years were analyzed.Findings: Adequacy of biopsy specimens was appropriate in 74% of cases. Adequacy of biopsy specimens was higher in non transplanted kidnies. The trend to using new methods of renal biopsy has been increased among specialists during the study. The Adequacy of biopsy specimens in blind method, CT scan-guided biopsy, and real time ultrasounography was 75.2%, 66.4%, and 77.6% respectively (P > 0.05).Conclusion: According to the findings of current study, the advantages of new biopsy methods than traditional blind method have not been demonstrated but the growing experience in this area was considerable. In addition, sufficient experience was derived regarding the blind method of renal biopsy.

Keywords

References

  1. Rose BD. Indications for and complications of renal biopsy. UpToDateTM, BDR-UpToDat 1998; 6: 1.
  2. Johnson RJ, Feehally J. Comprehensive clinical nephrology. Philadelphia: Mosby; 2000. p. 2-7, 1-5.
  3. Iversen P, Brun C. Aspiration biopsy of the kidney. Am J Med 1951; 11(3): 324-30.
  4. Israni AK, Kasiske BL. Labratory Assessment of Kidney Disease: Clearnce, Urinalysis, and Kidney Biopsy. In: Brenner BM, Rector FC, Editors. Brenner & Rector's the kidney. Philadelphia: Saunders Elsevier; 2008. p. 747-51.
  5. Shidham GB, Siddiqi N, Beres JA, Logan B, Nagaraja HN, Shidham SG, et al. Clinical risk factors associated with bleeding after native kidney biopsy. Nephrology (Carlton) 2005; 10(3): 305-10.
  6. Maya ID, Maddela P, Barker J, Allon M. Percutaneous renal biopsy: comparison of blind and real-time ultrasound-guided technique. Semin Dial 2007; 20(4): 355-8.
  7. Tanagho EA, McAninch JW. Smith's general urology. 16th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill Professional; 2004. p. 133.
  8. Schrier RW. Diseases of the kidney and urinary tract. 7th ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2001. p. 457-61.
  9. Haaga JR, Lanzieri CF, Gilkeson RC. CT and MR imaging of the whole body, Volume 1. 4th ed. Philadelphia: Mosby; 2003. p. 2194-7
  10. Han MC, Park JH. Interventional radiology. Seoul: Ilchokak; 1999. p. 717-8.
  11. Mattix H, Singh AK. Is the bleeding time predictive of bleeding prior to a percutaneous renal biopsy? Curr Opin Nephrol Hypertens 1999; 8(6): 715-8.
  12. Boyvat F, Tarhan NC, Coskun M, Agildere AM, Tutar NU, Bilgin N. Comparison of two biopsy techniques for renal transplant assessment. Transplant Proc 1998; 30(3): 777-9.
  13. Rosai J, Ackerman LV. Surgical pathology. 9th ed. Philadelphia: Mosby; 2004. p. 1165.
  14. Walker PD, Cavallo T, Bonsib SM. Practice guidelines for the renal biopsy. Mod Pathol 2004; 17(12): 1555-63.
  15. Schwarz A, Gwinner W, Hiss M, Radermacher J, Mengel M, Haller H. Safety and adequacy of renal transplant protocol biopsies. Am J Transplant 2005; 5(8): 1992-6.
Journal of Isfahan Medical School
Volume 28, Issue 123 - Serial Number 123
November and December 2011
Pages 1879-1886

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 03 April 2011
  • Revise Date: 26 May 2024
  • Accept Date: 06 April 2022

Share

How to cite

Statistics