Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Do the needle type and the operator experience influence liver biopsy specimen quality?

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Central European Journal of Medicine

Abstract

Aim

We evaluated the influence of the type of needle and the operator’s experience on the quality of the specimen obtained at liver biopsy (LB).

Material and method

We performed a multicentre, prospective study in four university hospitals, including LBs performed using either “cutting” (TruCut) or “suction” (Menghini) needles. According to their experience, we considered the operators as “junior” (<100 LBs) or “senior” (>100 LBs).

Results

A total number of 745 LBs were evaluated, 413 performed with suction needles and 332 with cutting needles. Of all LBs, 473 where performed by “senior” and 272 by “junior” operators. The mean length of the fragment obtained was larger in LBs performed by senior (23.5±11.6 mm) vs. junior operators (15.9±9.8 mm, p<0.001) and also if modified Menghini needles were used (23.7±12.1 mm) vs. TruCut (13.0±5.2 mm, p<0.001). The number of portal tracts (PT) was higher in LBs performed by “senior” (14.3±8.8 PT) vs. “junior” operators (8.8±6.8 PT, p<0.001); and with Menghini needles (17.2±9.7 PT) vs. TruCut (8.6±5.0 PT, p<0.001).

Conclusion

Our study demonstrates that optimal biopsy samples are obtained by two intrahepatic passages with Menghini needles and that “senior” operators obtain better tissue samples than “junior” ones.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Friedman LS: Controversies in liver biopsy: who, where, when, how and why? Current Gastroenterology Reports 2004;6:30–36

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. The British Society of Gastroenterology Guidelines on the use of liver biopsy in clinical practice. Gut 1999; 45(Suppl.4): 1–11

    Google Scholar 

  3. Guido M, Rugge M: Liver biopsy sampling in chronic viral hepatitis. Semin Liver Dis Feb 2004; 24(1):89–97

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Colloredo G, Guido M, Sonzogni A, Leandro G: Impact of liver biopsy size on histological evaluation of chronic viral hepatitis: the smaller the sample, the milder the disease. J Hepatol 2003;39:239–244

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Cholongitas E, Senzolo M, Standish R, Marelli L, Quaglia A, Patch D,, et al. A systematic review of the quality of liver biopsy specimens. Am J Clin Pathol. 2006 May;125(5):710–721

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Poynard T, Halfon P, Castera L, Charlotte F, Le Bail B, Munteanu M, et al; FibroPaca Group.: Variability of the area under the receiver operating characteristic curves in the diagnostic evaluation of liver fibrosis markers: impact of biopsy lengh and fragmentation. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2007;25:733–739

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Poynard T, Munteanu M, Imbert-Bismut F, Charlotte F, Thabut D, Le Calvez S, et al: Prospective analysis of discordant results between biochemical markers and biopsy in patients with chronic hepatitis C. Clin Chem 2004;50:1344–1355

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Beaugrand M: (FibroScan instructions for use) Journées Francophones de Pathologie Digestive, Gastroenterol. Clin. Biol. 2006;30:513–514

    Google Scholar 

  9. de Man RA, van Buuren HR, Hop WC.: A randomised study on the efficacy and safety of an automated TruCut needle for percutaneous liver biopsy. Neth J Med 2004;62:441–445

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Piccinino F, Sagnelli E, Pasquale G, Giusti G: Complications following percutaneous liver biopsy: a multiple retrospective study on 68276 biopsies. J Hepatol 1986;2:165–173

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Lindor KD, Bru C, Jorgensen RA, Rakela J, Bordas JM, Gross JB, et al: The role of ultrasonography and automatic-needle biopsy in outpatient percutaneous liver biopsy. Hepatology 1996;23:1079–1083

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Younossi ZM, Teran JC, Ganiats TG, Carey WD: Ultrasound-guided liver biopsy for parenchymal liver diseases: an economical analysis. Dig Dis Sci 1998;43:46–50

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Pasha T, Gabriel S, Therneau T, Dickson ER, Lindor KD: Cost-effectiveness of ultrasound-guided liver biopsy. Hepatology 1998;27:1220–1226

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Poniachik J, Bernstein DE, Reddy KR, Jeffers LJ, Coelho-Little ME, Civantos F, et al: The role of laparoscopy in the diagnosis of cirrhosis. Gastrointest Endosc 1996;43:568–571

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Pagliaro L, Rinaldi F, Craxì A, Di Piazza S, Filippazzo G, Gatto G, et al: Percutaneous blind biopsy versus laparoscopy with guided biopsy in diagnosis of cirrhosis. A prospective, randomized trial. Dig Dis Sci 1983;28:39–43

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Maharaj B, Maharaj RJ, Leary WP, Cooppan RM, Naran AD, Pirie D, et al: Sampling variability and its influence on the diagnostic yield of percutaneous needle biopsy of the liver. Lancet 1986;1:523–525

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Bedossa P, Dargere P, Paradis V: Sampling variability of liver fibrosis in chronic hepatitis C. Hepatology 2003;38:1449–1457

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Cadranel JF, Rufat P, Degos F: Practices of liver biopsy in France: results of a prospective nationwide survey. Hepatology 2000; 32: 477–481

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Riley TR: How often does ultrasound making change the liver biopsy site. Am J Gastroenterol 1999; 94: 3320–3322

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Jensen DM: Liver biopsy in the management of hepatitis C: not always required. AGA Perspectives 2005;4:5–12

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Medicine and Pharmacy ”Victor Babeş” Timişoara, 300482, Timişoara, Romania

    Ioan Sporea, Alina Popescu & Roxana Şirli

  2. Department of Medical Informatics, University of Medicine and Pharmacy ”Victor Babeş” Timişoara, 300482, Timişoara, Romania

    Mircea Focşa

  3. Center of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Fundeni Clinical Institute, 022328, Bucharest, Romania

    Gabriel Becheanu & Liana Gheorghe

  4. Department of Pathology, University of Medicine and Pharmacy ”Victor Babeş” Timişoara, 300482, Timişoara, Romania

    Maria Cornianu

  5. Department of Gastroenterology, University of Medicine Iaşi, 700115, Iaşi, Romania

    Cristina Cijevschi Prelipcean & Cătălina Mihai

  6. I Medical Department, University of Medicine and Pharmacy Craiova, 200349, Craiova, Romania

    Ion Rogoveanu & Larisa Săndulescu

Authors
  1. Ioan Sporea
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Alina Popescu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mircea Focşa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Gabriel Becheanu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Roxana Şirli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Maria Cornianu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Liana Gheorghe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Cristina Cijevschi Prelipcean
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Cătălina Mihai
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Ion Rogoveanu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Larisa Săndulescu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ioan Sporea.

About this article

Cite this article

Sporea, I., Popescu, A., Focşa, M. et al. Do the needle type and the operator experience influence liver biopsy specimen quality?. cent.eur.j.med 8, 669–673 (2013). https://doi.org/10.2478/s11536-012-0148-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/s11536-012-0148-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation