| Literature DB >> 27583085 |
Houda Mbarki1, Khadija Alaoui Belghiti1, Taoufiq Harmouch2, Adil Najdi3, Mohamed Arrayhani4, Tarik Sqalli4.
Abstract
The contribution of renal needle biopsy (RNB) to make a diagnosis, a treatment selection and a prognostic evaluation of nephropathies is significant. No Moroccan study has evaluated the practice and the contribution of RNB. Our aim was to study RNB indications, to determine the frequency of kidney diseases identified by RNB in our region and make a comparison between clinical and biological data and histological diagnosis. This is a retrospective study conducted between January 2009 and December 2012. We included all patients in the Department of Nephrology, CHU Hassan II, Fez, who underwent biopsy of native kidneys. 522 RNB were performed. We excluded 8 biopsies due to lack of informations and 514 were retained. The average age of the patients at the time of RNB was 39±17 years (3-82 years). Sex ratio was 0.9. Nephrotic syndrome was the most common clinical diagnosis to all ages (58.2%). Glomerular nephropathies represent 94,2% of diagnosed renal diseases, their distribution varies according to patients' age. RNB confirmed the first clinically suspected diagnosis in 40.65% of cases, whereas it revealed an unexpected diagnosis in 22.5% of them. Syndromic diagnosis can orient the clinician toward the most probable kidney disease and guide any emergency treatment while awaiting RNB results. But it can never replace RNB which remains the gold standard.Entities:
Keywords: Renal biopsy; diagnosis; nephropathies
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27583085 PMCID: PMC4992384 DOI: 10.11604/pamj.2016.24.21.3982
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Pan Afr Med J
Figure 1Répartition des biopsies rénales selon l’âge des patients
Caractéristiques clinico-biologiques des patients au moment de la PBR
| Caractéristiques | Valeurs |
|---|---|
| Hypertension artérielle (%) | 43,3 |
| Protéinurie (g/24 heures;%) | |
| <0,3 | 4,7 |
| 0,3- 3 | 31 |
| >3 | 64,3 |
| Hématurie | 65,4 |
| Oligo-anurie | 8,6 |
| Insuffisance rénale | 58,2 |
Figure 2Diagnostics syndromiques chez nos patients au moment de la PBR
Répartition des néphropathies prouvées par PBR en cas de syndrome néphrotique
| Diagnostic histologique | Enfantsn = 10; (%) | Adultes n = 212; (%) | Agés n = 25; (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| LGM | 30 | 11,3 | 12 |
| HSF | 10 | 7,5 | 12 |
| GEM | 0 | 14 | 12 |
| LGM ou HSF | 0 | 8,5 | 0 |
| GNMP | 0 | 1,9 | 8 |
| Non classée | 40 | 17,4 | 12 |
| GNEC | 10 | 1,4 | 0 |
| GNA | 0 | 2,4 | 4 |
| N IgA | 10 | 0,5 | 4 |
| GL | 0 | 13,2 | 4 |
| Amylose | 0 | 11 | 8 |
| Vascularite | 0 | 0,9 | 0 |
| GNC | 0 | 9 | 20 |
| NTA | 0 | 0,5 | 0 |
| NTIA | 0 | 0,5 | 0 |
| Autre | 0 | 0,5 | 4 |
Répartition des néphropathies prouvées par PBR en cas de protéinurie/ hématurie microscopique
| Diagnostic histologique | Enfants n = 3; (%) | Adultes n = 62; (%) | Agés n = 2; (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| LGM | 33,33 | 8 | 0 |
| HSF | 0 | 6,4 | 50 |
| GEM | 0 | 4,8 | 0 |
| LGM ou HSF | 0 | 11,3 | 0 |
| GNMP | 0 | 1,6 | 0 |
| Non classée | 0 | 14,5 | 0 |
| GNEC | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| GNA | 0 | 1,6 | 0 |
| N IgA | 33,33 | 8 | 0 |
| GL | 33,33 | 33,9 | 0 |
| Amylose | 0 | 1,6 | 0 |
Fréquence des différentes néphropathies prouvées par biopsie en cas de GNRP
| Diagnostic histologique | Adultesn = 47; (%) | Agés n = 5; (%) |
|---|---|---|
| LGM | 6,4 | 20 |
| HSF | 2,1 | 0 |
| GEM | 0 | 0 |
| LGM ou HSF | 0 | 0 |
| GNMP | 0 | 40 |
| Non classée | 4,2 | 0 |
| GNEC | 4,2 | 0 |
| GNA | 4,2 | 0 |
| N IgA | 0 | 0 |
| GL | 4,2 | 0 |
| Amylose | 4,2 | 0 |
| Vascularite | 15,2 | 20 |
| GNC | 49 | 20 |
| NTA | 0 | 0 |
| NTIA | 0 | 0 |
| MAT et NASM | 2,1 | 0 |
| NTIC | 4,2 | 0 |
Modes de présentation clinique de la GEM selon l’âge
| Diagnostics syndromiques | Enfants n = 1; (%) | Adultes n = 39; (%) | Agés n = 4; (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| SN | 1 | 85,3 | 100 |
| PU/HU | 0 | 8,8 | 0 |
| GNRP | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Syndrome néphritique | 0 | 2,9 | 0 |
| IRA isolée | 0 | 2,9 | 0 |
Modes de présentation clinique de la HSF selon l’âge
| Diagnostics syndromiques | Enfants n = 2; (%) | Adultesn = 29; (%) | Agés n = 3; (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| SN | 100 | 72,7 | 100 |
| PU/HU | 0 | 18,3 | 0 |
| GNRP | 0 | 4,5 | 0 |
| Syndrome néphritique | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| IRA isolée | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| SNV | 4,5 | 0 |
Modes de présentation clinique de la LGM selon l’âge
| Diagnostics syndromiques | Enfantsn = 3; (%) | Adultesn = 34; (%) | Agés n = 4; (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| SN | 100 | 70,5 | 75 |
| PU/HU | 0 | 14,7 | 0 |
| GNRP | 0 | 8,8 | 25 |
| Syndrome néphritique | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| IRA isolée | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| SNV | 0 | 6 | 0 |