Advertisement

Abdominal Radiology

, Volume 43, Issue 10, pp 2597–2603 | Cite as

Ultrasound-guided renal transplant biopsy: practical and pragmatic considerations

  • Maitray D. Patel
  • Scott W. Young
  • J. Scott Kriegshauser
  • Nirvikar Dahiya
Article
  • 207 Downloads

Abstract

Sonographically guided percutaneous core biopsy of renal allografts has been performed for decades, providing valuable information in monitoring the status of normally functioning renal transplants as well as investigating the cause of renal transplant dysfunction. This article reviews practical aspects of biopsy technique using the cortical tangential approach, with consideration of factors that may influence biopsy success, including selection of biopsy device. Clinically important complications from renal transplant biopsy are uncommon; the most recent experience for one institution is analyzed in the context of existing evidence regarding the frequency and timing of these major complications, to understand pragmatic implications for peri-procedural care.

Keywords

Radiology Ultrasound Renal transplant Biopsy Device Complications 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Funding

This study has no funding.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. For this type of study formal consent is not required.

References

  1. 1.
    Racusen LC, Solez K, Colvin RB, et al. (1999) The Banff 97 working classification of renal allograft pathology. Kidney Int 55(2):713–723CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Solez K, Colvin RB, Racusen LC, et al. (2008) Banff 07 classification of renal allograft pathology: updates and future directions. Am J Transplant 8(4):753–760.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-6143.2008.02159.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Patel MD, Phillips CJ, Young SW, et al. (2010) US-guided renal transplant biopsy: efficacy of a cortical tangential approach. Radiology 256(1):290–296CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Boban MD, Tiefenthaler M (2017) Tangential extraperitoneal retrorenal approach: a specified uniform technique for renal transplant biopsy. Transpl Int 30(9):947–950.  https://doi.org/10.1111/tri.12994 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Nicholson ML, Wheatley TJ, Doughman TM, et al. (2000) A prospective randomized trial of three different sizes of core-cutting needle for renal transplant biopsy. Kidney Int 58(1):390–395CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Haggarth L, Ekman P, Egevad L (2002) A new core-biopsy instrument with an end-cut technique provides prostate biopsies with increased tissue yield. BJU Int 90(1):51–55CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Moore JZ, McLaughlin PW, Shih AJ (2012) Novel needle cutting edge geometry for end-cut biopsy. Med Phys 39(1):99–108.  https://doi.org/10.1118/1.3665253 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dogan HS, Eskicorapci SY, Ertoy-Baydar D, et al. (2005) Can we obtain better specimens with an end-cutting prostatic biopsy device? Eur Urol 47(3):297–301.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2004.09.004 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ozden E, Gogus C, Tulunay O, Baltaci S (2004) The long core needle with an end-cut technique for prostate biopsy: does it really have advantages when compared with standard needles? Eur Urol 45(3):287–291.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2003.10.004 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Patel MD, Miranda R, Phillips CJ, et al. (2011) Impact of a quality assessment program on radiologist performance in ultrasound-guided renal transplant biopsy. J Am Coll Radiol 8(5):355–359.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2010.08.014 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Baffour FI, Hickson LJ, Stegall MD, et al. (2017) Effects of aspirin therapy on ultrasound-guided renal allograft biopsy bleeding complications. J Vasc Interv Radiol 28(2):188–194.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvir.2016.10.021 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Furness PN, Philpott CM, Chorbadjian MT, et al. (2003) Protocol biopsy of the stable renal transplant: a multicenter study of methods and complication rates. Transplantation 76(6):969–973CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Redfield RR, McCune KR, Rao A, et al. (2016) Nature, timing, and severity of complications from ultrasound-guided percutaneous renal transplant biopsy. Transpl Int 29(2):167–172.  https://doi.org/10.1111/tri.12660 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Morgan TA, Chandran S, Burger IM, Zhang CA, Goldstein RB (2016) Complications of ultrasound-guided renal transplant biopsies. Am J Transplant 16(4):1298–1305.  https://doi.org/10.1111/ajt.13622 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Maitray D. Patel
    • 1
  • Scott W. Young
    • 1
  • J. Scott Kriegshauser
    • 1
  • Nirvikar Dahiya
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of RadiologyMayo Clinic ArizonaPhoenixUSA

Personalised recommendations