Evaluating bone biopsy quality by technique in an animal model - 21/09/22

Doi : 10.1016/j.redii.2022.100008

Corey K Ho, MD ^a,^⁎ , David Gimarc, MD ^a, Hsieng-Feng Carroll, PhD ^a, Michael Clay, MD ^b, Jeffrey Schowinsky, MD ^b, MK Jesse, MD ^a, Amanda M Crawford, MD ^c, Carrie B Marshall, MD ^b
^a University of Colorado – Anschutz Medical Campus, Department of Radiology, 12401 E 17th Ave, Aurora, CO 80045, USA
^b University of Colorado – Anschutz Medical Campus, Department of Pathology, 12401 E 17th Ave, Aurora, CO 80045, USA
^c University of Utah – Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, University of Utah Hospital, 50 2030 E, Salt Lake City, UT 84132, USA

^⁎Corresponding author: Corey K Ho, University of Colorado, Anschutz Medical Campus, 12401 E 17th Ave, Aurora, CO 80045 USA. 973-219-3591University of ColoradoAnschutz Medical Campus12401 E 17th AveAuroraCO80045USA

connectez-vous ou créez un compte

Bienvenue sur EM-consulte, la référence des professionnels de santé.
Article gratuit.

Connectez-vous pour en bénéficier!

Abstract

Rationale and Objectives

Powered bone biopsy technique is popular due to its ease of use. However, there is conflicting evidence regarding the diagnostic quality of the samples. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the diagnostic adequacy of different bone biopsy devices and techniques as it relates to the frequency of sample artifacts.

Materials and Methods

Bone biopsy was performed on same-day processed lamb femora using the following techniques: manual, pulsed powered and full powered. Ten samples were collected using each method by a single musculoskeletal-trained radiologist and were reviewed by 3 blinded pathologists. Samples were compared across multiple categories: length, bone dust, thermal/crush artifact, cellular morphology, fragmentation, and diagnostic acceptability. Bayesian Multilevel Nonlinear Regression models were performed assessing the association between the techniques across the categories.

Results

Statistical analysis revealed that the manual technique outperformed any powered technique across all categories: decreased thermal/crush artifact (P = 0.014), decreased bone dust (p<0.001), better cellular morphology (P = 0.005), less fragmentation (P < 0.0001) and better diagnostic acceptability (P < 0.0001).

Conclusion

Manually obtained bone biopsy samples generally produce a more diagnostic sample as compared to powered techniques in an animal model. Given these results, manual bone biopsy methods should be encouraged after consideration for lesion composition, difficulty of access and the patient's overall condition.

Le texte complet de cet article est disponible en PDF.

Keywords : Bone, Biopsy, Artifact

Plan

Introduction

Materials and methods

Declaration of Competing Interests

CRediT authorship contribution statement

Export

Vol 2

Article 100008- juin 2022 Retour au numéro

Article précédent

Contents

| Article suivant

Grading of soft tissues sarcomas using radiomics models: Choice of imaging methods and comparison with conventional visual analysis
Bailiang Chen, Olivier Steinberger, Roman Fenioux, Quentin Duverger, Tryphon Lambrou, Gauthier Dodin, Alain Blum, Pedro Augusto Gondim Teixeira

Bienvenue sur EM-consulte, la référence des professionnels de santé.

connectez-vous ou créez un compte

Evaluating bone biopsy quality by technique in an animal model - 21/09/22

Abstract

Rationale and Objectives

Materials and Methods

Results

Conclusion

Plan

Export citations

Fichier

Contenu

Accès rapides

Mon compte

Aide & support

Plateformes Elsevier Masson

Déclaration CNIL