4.1 Article

Accuracy of Suction Rectal Biopsy for Diagnosis of Hirschsprung's Disease in Neonates

Journal

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF PEDIATRIC SURGERY
Volume 29, Issue 5, Pages 425-430

Publisher

GEORG THIEME VERLAG KG
DOI: 10.1055/s-0038-1667040

Keywords

Hirschsprung's disease; rectal biopsy; suction rectal biopsy

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Introduction Recent publications have questioned the sensitivity of suction rectal biopsy (SRB) for diagnosis of Hirschsprung's disease (HD) in newborns. A recent European survey reported that 39% of pediatric surgeons performed full-thickness transanal biopsies due to concerns about the accuracy of SRB. We sought to examine our contemporary SRB experience in infants. Materials and Methods A review was performed (2007-2016) of patients under 6 months of age who had a SRB at our children's hospital. The cohort was subdivided by postmenstrual age at time of SRB: preterm (< 40 weeks, A), term neonate (40-44 weeks, B), and infant (> 44 weeks, C). The pathology reports from endorectal pull-through were used as gold standard confirmation. One-year follow-up of patients with negative SRB was used to confirm accurate diagnosis. Results A total of 153 patients met the criteria and a total of 159 SRBs (< 2,500g; n = 26) were performed (A = 60, B = 58, C = 35). Forty-three patients were diagnosed with HD (A = 25, B = 15, C = 3). A second SRB was performed in 6 (3.9%) patients due to inadequate tissue (A = 2, B = 2, C = 2) with HD diagnosed in 5. No complications occurred. Sensitivity and specificity of SRB was 100% in all age groups. Half of the patients with a negative SRB had at least 1 year follow-up, with none subsequently diagnosed with HD. Conclusion SRB results in adequate tissue for evaluation of HD in nearly all patients less than 6 months of age on the first attempt and is highly accurate in the preterm and newborn infants. No complications occurred, even among infants less than 2,500 g.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available