Literature DB >> 30643943

Ex vivo performance comparison of three percutaneous biopsy needle systems.

Miltiadis Krokidis1,2,3, Martin Hungerbühler4,5, Ekkehard Hewer6, Johannes Heverhagen4,5, Hendrik von Tengg-Kobligk4,5.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: The aim of this study is to identify the micro-mechanical characteristics that define biopsy performance in normal ex vivo animal organs.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three biopsy systems with differences of needle external diameter, tray height and effective tray length were assessed. Sampling was performed in porcine liver and kidneys with commercially labelled 14G, 16G and 18G, using 2-cm throw needle systems. Five samples were obtained per needle size and per organ, and the experiment was repeated twice for a total of 90 biopsy cores. Samples were analysed and compared in terms of macroscopic aspect, sample length, weight and tissue architecture.
RESULTS: The system with the longest effective needle tray (system A) has shown significant superiority (p < 0.001) versus the other systems regarding the mean weight of tissue obtained for all needle sizes. Furthermore, the 14G needle of system A has shown superiority regarding the number of portal spaces and the 16G regarding the length of kidney fragments obtained.
CONCLUSION: The outcomes obtained with the different biopsy systems were not equal. The micro-mechanical characteristic that appears to influence the quantity and quality of the obtained tissue is the effective needle tray length and not the needle external diameter or the needle tray height. This information should be taken into account in the future design of biopsy needle systems, particularly when potentially used in the assessment of biomarkers and the characterisation of tumour micro-environment. KEY POINTS: • The amount of obtained tissue mass is not the same among percutaneous biopsy needle systems. • There are different micro-mechanical characteristics that condition the amount of obtained tissue. • The micro-mechanical characteristic that offers more tissue mass for the same calibre is the effective length of the needle tray.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Biopsy; Kidney; Liver; Tissue

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 30643943     DOI: 10.1007/s00330-018-5960-7

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Radiol        ISSN: 0938-7994            Impact factor:   5.315


  7 in total

1.  Quality improvement guidelines for percutaneous needle biopsy.

Authors:  Sanjay Gupta; Michael J Wallace; John F Cardella; Sanjoy Kundu; Donald L Miller; Steven C Rose
Journal:  J Vasc Interv Radiol       Date:  2010-03-20       Impact factor: 3.464

Review 2.  The changing face of percutaneous image-guided biopsy: molecular profiling and genomic analysis in current practice.

Authors:  Dustyn Marshall; Jeanne M Laberge; Brandie Firetag; Theodore Miller; Robert K Kerlan
Journal:  J Vasc Interv Radiol       Date:  2013-06-24       Impact factor: 3.464

3.  Sixteen Gauge biopsy needles are better and safer than 18 Gauge in native and transplant kidney biopsies.

Authors:  Björn Peters; Johan Mölne; Henrik Hadimeri; Ursula Hadimeri; Bernd Stegmayr
Journal:  Acta Radiol       Date:  2016-07-20       Impact factor: 1.990

4.  When size matters: diagnostic value of kidney biopsy according to the gauge of the biopsy needle.

Authors:  Rachel Roth; Samir Parikh; Dayanand Makey; Jamison Foster; Grigory Rozenblit; Anjali Satoskar; Gyongyi Nadasdy; Jon Von Visger; Lee Hebert; Brad H Rovin; Tibor Nadasdy; Sergey V Brodsky
Journal:  Am J Nephrol       Date:  2013-03-09       Impact factor: 3.754

Review 5.  Guided percutaneous biopsy of intraabdominal lesions.

Authors:  G S Gazelle; J R Haaga
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  1989-11       Impact factor: 3.959

Review 6.  Comparison of fine needle aspiration cytology and needle core biopsy in the diagnosis of radiologically detected abdominal lesions.

Authors:  C J R Stewart; J Coldewey; I S Stewart
Journal:  J Clin Pathol       Date:  2002-02       Impact factor: 3.411

Review 7.  Liquid biopsy of cancer: a multimodal diagnostic tool in clinical oncology.

Authors:  Raffaele Palmirotta; Domenica Lovero; Paola Cafforio; Claudia Felici; Francesco Mannavola; Eleonora Pellè; Davide Quaresmini; Marco Tucci; Franco Silvestris
Journal:  Ther Adv Med Oncol       Date:  2018-08-29       Impact factor: 8.168

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.