Skip to main content
Log in

Renal biopsy in children: comparison of two techniques

  • Brief Report
  • Published:
Pediatric Nephrology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Two hundred and thirty-five children who underwent percutaneous renal biopsy under real-time ultrasound guidance at The Hospital for Sick Children, between 1 January 1991 and 31 March 1993, were studied to compare the incidence of complications after biopsies with the Trucut needle (TN) and the Bard Biopty gun (BG). Of the 190 cases for which full clinical details were available and in which a single instrument was used for renal biopsy, 157 were biopsied with the BG and 33 with the TN. There was no significant difference between the two groups in variables such as age, weight, sex, number of needle passes and number of tissue cores obtained. The proportion of native and allograft biopsies in each group was similar. More children in the TN group underwent biopsy under general anaesthesia. Adequate diagnostic tissue samples were obtained in 189 of 190 cases. There were more complications in the TN group than in the BG group (P<0.001). When allograft and native kidney biopsies were analysed separately, this difference in complications remained highly significant for the native kidney group (P<0.005), though not for the allograft group. When the effect of needle size alone was investigated, there was no significant difference in the incidence of complications when TN biopsies were compared with 14-gauge BG biopsies or when 14- and 18-gauge BG biopsies were compared with each other.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

References

  1. Carvajal HF, Travis LB, Srivastava RN, Beukelaer MM de, Dodge WF, Dupree E (1971) Percutaneous renal biopsy in children — an analysis of complications in 890 consecutive biopsies. Texas Rep Biol Med 29: 253–264

    Google Scholar 

  2. Edelmann CM Jr, Greifer I (1967) A modified technique for percutaneous needle biopsy of the kidney. J Pediatr 70: 81–86

    Google Scholar 

  3. Dodge WF, Daeschner CW Jr, Brennan JC, Rosenberg HS, Travis LB, Hopps HC (1962) Percutaneous renal biopsy in children. I. General considerations. Pediatrics 30: 287–296

    Google Scholar 

  4. Karafin L, Kendall AR, Fleisher DS (1970) Urologic complications in percutaneous renal biopsy in children. J Urol 103: 332–335

    Google Scholar 

  5. Chan JCM, Brewer WH, Still WJ (1983) Renal biopsies under ultrasound guidance: 100 consecutive biopsies in children. J Urol 129: 103–107

    Google Scholar 

  6. Komaiko MS, Jordan SC, Querfeld U, Goodman MD (1989) A new percutaneous renal biopsy device for pediatric patients. Pediatr Nephrol 3: 191–193

    Google Scholar 

  7. Cozens NJA, Murchison JT, Allan PL, Winney RJ (1992) Conventional 15 G needle technique for renal biopsy compared with ultrasound-guided spring-loaded 18 G needle biopsy. Br J Radiol 65: 594–597

    Google Scholar 

  8. Bogan ML, Kopecky KK, Kraft JL, Holladay AO, Filo RS, Leapman SB, Thomalla JV (1990) Needle biopsy of renal allografts: comparison of two techniques. Radiology 174: 273–275

    Google Scholar 

  9. Madaio MP (1990) Renal biopsy. Kidney Int 38: 529–543

    Google Scholar 

  10. Veiga PA, Moxey-Mims MM, Springate JE, Feld LG (1991) A simple method for percutaneous renal biopsy. Child Nephrol Urol 11: 196–198

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Additional information

HSC price May 1993, Trucut needle Canadian $ 11.15, Biopty needle Canadian $ 30.50.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Webb, N.J.A., Pereira, J.K., Chait, P.G. et al. Renal biopsy in children: comparison of two techniques. Pediatr Nephrol 8, 486–488 (1994). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00856542

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00856542

Key words

Navigation