Adam N Wallace1, Rafael A Pacheco2, Ross Vyhmeister3, Anderanik Tomasian2, Randy O Chang3, Jack W Jennings2. 1. Mallinckrodt Institute of Radiology, 510 South Kingshighway Boulevard, Saint Louis, MO, 63110, USA. wallacea@mir.wustl.edu. 2. Mallinckrodt Institute of Radiology, 510 South Kingshighway Boulevard, Saint Louis, MO, 63110, USA. 3. Washington University School of Medicine, 660 South Euclid Avenue, Saint Louis, MO, 63110, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Percutaneous biopsy of discitis-osteomyelitis is performed to isolate the causative microorganism and exclude alternative diagnoses. We compared drill-assisted and manual fluoroscopy-guided intervertebral disc biopsies with respect to conscious sedation requirements and histologic quality of obtained specimens. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Medical records of all single-level, fluoroscopy-guided intervertebral disc biopsies supervised by one of two musculoskeletal radiologists between January 2010 and March 2015 were reviewed. Duration and cumulative medication doses required for each biopsy were recorded. Pathology reports were reviewed to determine whether the obtained specimens were adequate for histopathologic evaluation. Microbiology reports were reviewed to determine whether the causative organism was isolated from the biopsy specimen. RESULTS: During the study period, 21 drill-assisted and 20 manual biopsies were performed. The median duration of conscious sedation for drill-assisted biopsies was 30 min (range, 17-40 min) compared with 39 min (range, 20-90 min) for manual biopsies (p < 0.01). Drill-assisted biopsies also required lower median cumulative doses of intravenous midazolam [2 mg (range, 0-5 mg) vs. 3 mg (range, 0-9 mg); p = 0.02]. All drill-assisted biopsy specimens were adequate for histopathologic evaluation. One manual biopsy specimen (5 %; 1/20) was inadequate for histopathologic evaluation owing to crush artifact. The microbiology yields of drill-assisted and manual biopsies were comparable [14 % (3/21) vs. 20 % (4/20); p = 0.62]. CONCLUSIONS: Fluoroscopically-guided intervertebral disc biopsies performed with drill assistance require less conscious sedation compared with manual biopsies and yield specimens that are adequate for histopathologic evaluation.
OBJECTIVES: Percutaneous biopsy of discitis-osteomyelitis is performed to isolate the causative microorganism and exclude alternative diagnoses. We compared drill-assisted and manual fluoroscopy-guided intervertebral disc biopsies with respect to conscious sedation requirements and histologic quality of obtained specimens. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Medical records of all single-level, fluoroscopy-guided intervertebral disc biopsies supervised by one of two musculoskeletal radiologists between January 2010 and March 2015 were reviewed. Duration and cumulative medication doses required for each biopsy were recorded. Pathology reports were reviewed to determine whether the obtained specimens were adequate for histopathologic evaluation. Microbiology reports were reviewed to determine whether the causative organism was isolated from the biopsy specimen. RESULTS: During the study period, 21 drill-assisted and 20 manual biopsies were performed. The median duration of conscious sedation for drill-assisted biopsies was 30 min (range, 17-40 min) compared with 39 min (range, 20-90 min) for manual biopsies (p < 0.01). Drill-assisted biopsies also required lower median cumulative doses of intravenous midazolam [2 mg (range, 0-5 mg) vs. 3 mg (range, 0-9 mg); p = 0.02]. All drill-assisted biopsy specimens were adequate for histopathologic evaluation. One manual biopsy specimen (5 %; 1/20) was inadequate for histopathologic evaluation owing to crush artifact. The microbiology yields of drill-assisted and manual biopsies were comparable [14 % (3/21) vs. 20 % (4/20); p = 0.62]. CONCLUSIONS: Fluoroscopically-guided intervertebral disc biopsies performed with drill assistance require less conscious sedation compared with manual biopsies and yield specimens that are adequate for histopathologic evaluation.
Authors: A M Borowski; W N Crow; A G Hadjipavlou; G Chaljub; J Mader; F Cesani; E vanSonnenberg Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 1998-06 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Ronan T Swords; Javier Anguita; Russell A Higgins; Andrea C Yunes; Michael Naski; Swaminathan Padmanabhan; Kevin R Kelly; Devalingam Mahalingam; Thomas Philbeck; Larry Miller; Tatiana A Puga; Francis J Giles; Marsha C Kinney; Andrew J Brenner Journal: J Clin Pathol Date: 2011-05-23 Impact factor: 3.411
Authors: Muneeb Ahmed; Luigi Solbiati; Christopher L Brace; David J Breen; Matthew R Callstrom; J William Charboneau; Min-Hua Chen; Byung Ihn Choi; Thierry de Baère; Gerald D Dodd; Damian E Dupuy; Debra A Gervais; David Gianfelice; Alice R Gillams; Fred T Lee; Edward Leen; Riccardo Lencioni; Peter J Littrup; Tito Livraghi; David S Lu; John P McGahan; Maria Franca Meloni; Boris Nikolic; Philippe L Pereira; Ping Liang; Hyunchul Rhim; Steven C Rose; Riad Salem; Constantinos T Sofocleous; Stephen B Solomon; Michael C Soulen; Masatoshi Tanaka; Thomas J Vogl; Bradford J Wood; S Nahum Goldberg Journal: J Vasc Interv Radiol Date: 2014-10-23 Impact factor: 3.464
Authors: Rob McCarney; James Warner; Steve Iliffe; Robbert van Haselen; Mark Griffin; Peter Fisher Journal: BMC Med Res Methodol Date: 2007-07-03 Impact factor: 4.615