4.3 Article

Single-pass percutaneous liver biopsy for diffuse liver disease using an automated device: Experience in 154 procedures

Journal

CARDIOVASCULAR AND INTERVENTIONAL RADIOLOGY
Volume 28, Issue 5, Pages 584-588

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00270-004-0017-5

Keywords

automated needle; diffuse chronic hepatitis; hepatitis C; liver biopsy; safety; ultrasound guidance

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: To describe our experience with ultrasound (US)-guided percutaneous liver biopsies using the INRAD 18G Express core needle biopsy system. Methods: One hundred and fifty-four consecutive percutaneous core liver biopsy procedures were performed in 153 men in a single institution over 37 months. The medical charts, pathology reports, and radiology files were retrospectively reviewed. The number of needle passes, type of guidance, change in hematocrit level, and adequacy of specimens for histologic analysis were evaluated. Results: All biopsies were performed for histologic staging of chronic liver diseases. The majority of patients had hepatitis C (134/153, 90.2%). All patients were discharged to home after 4 hr of postprocedural observation. In 145 of 154 (94%) biopsies, a single needle pass was sufficient for diagnosis. US guidance was utilized in all but one of the procedures (153/154, 99.4%). The mean hematocrit decrease was 1.2% (44.1-42.9%). Pain requiring narcotic analgesia, the most frequent complication, occurred in 28 of 154 procedures (18.2%). No major complications occurred. The specimens were diagnostic in 152 of 154 procedures (98.7%). Conclusions: Single-pass percutaneous US-guided liver biopsy with the INRAD 18G Express core needle biopsy system is safe and provides definitive pathologic diagnosis of chronic liver disease. It can be performed on an outpatient basis. Routine post-biopsy monitoring of hematocrit level in stable, asymptomatic patients is probably not warranted.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available