Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Effect of needle gauge and lobe laterality on parenchymal liver biopsy outcome: a retrospective analysis

  • Published:
Abdominal Imaging Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To analyze the effect of lobe selection, needle gauge, and number of passes on procedure outcomes in terms of specimen length and post-procedure complications.

Methods

In this HIPAA-compliant, IRB-approved retrospective study, the data from 771 ultrasound-guided adult parenchymal liver biopsies were analyzed. Post-procedure complications were assigned a 3-point rating scale. Associations between specimen length and post-procedure complications with lobe laterality, needle gauge, and number of passes were analyzed. Multivariate logistic regression models were used to analyze the likelihood for achieving a specimen length of at least 2 cm.

Results

Post-procedure complications were not associated with lobe laterality, needle gauge, and number of passes (p > 0.3). Specimen length was associated with the number of passes dichotomized at the study mean (p = 0.007), but not with lobe laterality or needle gauge (p > 0.2). After adjusting for lobe laterality and needle gauge, procedures with 1 or 2 passes were associated with a higher likelihood of obtaining a 2 cm or longer specimen (OR 2.469; CI 1.08–5.63, p = 0.0315) than procedures with 3 or more passes, possibly due to poorer sample quality. After adjusting for lobe laterality, an 18-gauge needle was associated with higher odds of a biopsy procedure with 1 or 2 passes (OR 3.665; CI 1.93–6.95, p < 0.0001) than a 20-gauge needle.

Conclusions

Lobe laterality was not associated with specimen length or post-procedure complications. An 18-gauge needle compared to a 20-gauge needle could reduce the need for a procedure with more than 2 passes. There was no difference in post-procedure complications between the two needle sizes.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Sporea I, Popescu A, Sirli R (2008) Why, who and how should perform liver biopsy in chronic liver diseases. World J Gastroenterol 14(21):3396–3402

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Klevens RM, Miller J, Vonderwahl C, et al. (2009) Population-based surveillance for hepatitis C virus, United States, 2006–2007. Emerg Infect Dis 15(9):1499–1502. doi:10.3201/eid1509.081050

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Rockey DC, Caldwell SH, Goodman ZD, et al. (2009) Liver biopsy. Hepatology 49(3):1017–1044. doi:10.1002/hep.22742

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Bravo AA, Sheth SG, Chopra S (2001) Liver biopsy. N Engl J Med 344(7):495–500. doi:10.1056/NEJM200102153440706

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Cadranel JF, Rufat P, Degos F (2000) Practices of liver biopsy in France: results of a prospective nationwide survey. For the Group of Epidemiology of the French Association for the Study of the Liver (AFEF). Hepatology 32(3):477–481. doi:10.1053/jhep.2000.16602

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Nazarian LN, Feld RI, Herrine SK, et al. (2000) Safety and efficacy of sonographically guided random core biopsy for diffuse liver disease. J Ultrasound Med 19(8):537–541

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Mayoral W, Lewis JH (2001) Percutaneous liver biopsy: what is the current approach? Results of a questionnaire survey. Dig Dis Sci 46(1):118–127

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Vijayaraghavan GR, David S, Bermudez-Allende M, Sarwat H (2011) Imaging-guided parenchymal liver biopsy: how we do it. J Clin Imaging Sci 1:30. doi:10.4103/2156-7514.82082

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Angtuaco TL, Lal SK, Banaad-Omiotek GD, Zaidi SS, Howden CW (2002) Current liver biopsy practices for suspected parenchymal liver diseases in the United States: the evolving role of radiologists. Am J Gastroenterol 97(6):1468–1471. doi:10.1111/j.1572-0241.2002.05788.x

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Lipp MJ, D’Souza LS, Clain DJ, Bodenheimer HC Jr, Min AD (2010) Trends in the indication and method of liver biopsy for hepatitis B and C. Dig Dis Sci 55(10):2971–2976. doi:10.1007/s10620-010-1337-8

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Pasha T, Gabriel S, Therneau T, Dickson ER, Lindor KD (1998) Cost-effectiveness of ultrasound-guided liver biopsy. Hepatology 27(5):1220–1226. doi:10.1002/hep.510270506

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Younossi ZM, Teran JC, Ganiats TG, Carey WD (1998) Ultrasound-guided liver biopsy for parenchymal liver disease: an economic analysis. Dig Dis Sci 43(1):46–50

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Padia SA, Baker ME, Schaeffer CJ, et al. (2009) Safety and efficacy of sonographic-guided random real-time core needle biopsy of the liver. J Clin Ultrasound 37(3):138–143. doi:10.1002/jcu.20553

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Hatfield MK, Beres RA, Sane SS, Zaleski GX (2008) Percutaneous imaging-guided solid organ core needle biopsy: coaxial versus noncoaxial method. AJR Am J Roentgenol 190(2):413–417. doi:10.2214/AJR.07.2676

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Childs DD, Tchelepi H (2009) Ultrasound and abdominal intervention: new luster on old gem. Ultrasound Clin 4(1):25–43

    Google Scholar 

  16. Al Knawy B, Shiffman M (2007) Percutaneous liver biopsy in clinical practice. Liver Int 27(9):1166–1173. doi:10.1111/j.1478-3231.2007.01592.x

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Copel L, Sosna J, Kruskal JB, Kane RA (2003) Ultrasound-guided percutaneous liver biopsy: indications, risks, and technique. Surg Technol Int 11:154–160

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Cholongitas E, Senzolo M, Standish R, et al. (2006) A systematic review of the quality of liver biopsy specimens. Am J Clin Pathol 125(5):710–721. doi:10.1309/W3XC-NT4H-KFBN-2G0B

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Rossi P, Sileri P, Gentileschi P, et al. (2001) Percutaneous liver biopsy using an ultrasound-guided subcostal route. Dig Dis Sci 46(1):128–132

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Tan KT, Rajan DK, Kachura JR, et al. (2005) Pain after percutaneous liver biopsy for diffuse hepatic disease: a randomized trial comparing subcostal and intercostal approaches. J Vasc Interv Radiol 16(9):1215–1219. doi:10.1097/01.RVI.0000173282.14018.79

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Westheim BH, Aagenaes I, Ostensen AB, Sanengen T, Almaas R (2013) Effect of operator experience and frequency of procedure performance on complication rate after ultrasound-guided percutaneous liver biopsies. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr 57(5):638–643. doi:10.1097/MPG.0b013e3182a0c7a5

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Mueller M, Kratzer W, Oeztuerk S, et al. (2012) Percutaneous ultrasonographically guided liver punctures: an analysis of 1961 patients over a period of ten years. BMC Gastroenterol 12:173. doi:10.1186/1471-230X-12-173

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Atwell TD, Smith RL, Hesley GK, et al. (2010) Incidence of bleeding after 15,181 percutaneous biopsies and the role of aspirin. AJR Am J Roentgenol 194(3):784–789. doi:10.2214/AJR.08.2122

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Vijayaraghavan G, Sheehan D, Zheng L, Hussain S, Ferrucci J (2011) Unusual complication after left-lobe liver biopsy for diffuse liver disease: severe bleeding from the superior epigastric artery. AJR Am J Roentgenol 197(6):W1135–1139. doi:10.2214/AJR.11.6545

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Plecha DM, Goodwin DW, Rowland DY, Varnes ME, Haaga JR (1997) Liver biopsy: effects of biopsy needle caliber on bleeding and tissue recovery. Radiology 204(1):101–104. doi:10.1148/radiology.204.1.9205229

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Sporea I, Gherhardt D, Popescu A, et al. (2012) Does the size of the needle influence the number of portal tracts obtained through percutaneous liver biopsy? Ann Hepatol 11(5):691–695

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, University of Massachusetts Medical School, 55 Lake Avenue North, Worcester, MA, 01655, USA

    Gopal R. Vijayaraghavan, Srinivasan Vedantham, Adib Karam, Larry Zheng, Abhijit Roychowdhury & Sarwat Hussain

  2. Department of Gastroenterology, MetroHealth Medical Center, 2500 MetroHealth Drive, Cleveland, OH, 44109, USA

    Vikram Rangan

Authors
  1. Gopal R. Vijayaraghavan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Srinivasan Vedantham
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Vikram Rangan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Adib Karam
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Larry Zheng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Abhijit Roychowdhury
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Sarwat Hussain
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gopal R. Vijayaraghavan.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Vijayaraghavan, G.R., Vedantham, S., Rangan, V. et al. Effect of needle gauge and lobe laterality on parenchymal liver biopsy outcome: a retrospective analysis. Abdom Imaging 40, 1223–1229 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-014-0290-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-014-0290-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation