Advertisement

Pediatric Radiology

, Volume 49, Issue 5, pp 626–631 | Cite as

Pediatric percutaneous renal biopsies: comparison of complications between real-time ultrasound guidance and pre-procedure ultrasound-aided skin-marking techniques

  • Shireen E. HayatghaibiEmail author
  • Daniel J. Ashton
  • Robert C. Orth
Original Article

Abstract

Background

Percutaneous renal biopsy is a commonly performed procedure that guides decision-making for children with renal disease.

Objective

To compare complications from renal biopsies using real-time ultrasound (US) guidance versus pre-procedure US-aided skin-marking in children.

Materials and methods

We conducted a priori power analysis using a risk-adjusted model, which indicated we needed a sample size of 643–714 procedures (effect size: 0.8). Then we retrospectively identified consecutive patients who underwent a percutaneous renal biopsy from Jan. 1, 2012, to Dec. 31, 2016. We categorized complications according to the Society of Interventional Radiology (SIR) criteria and compared rates using the Fisher exact test. We analyzed complication predictors using multivariate regression.

Results

The study consisted of 701 percutaneous renal biopsies in 553 patients: 313 used real-time US guidance and 388 used pre-procedure US-aided skin-marking. Among the 254/701 (36%) complications, 56/313 (18%) resulted from real-time US guidance and 198/388 (51%) from pre-procedure US-aided skin-marking (P<0.001). In the US real-time guidance group, 39/56 (70%) complications were SIR A, 8/56 (14%) SIR B, 6/56 (11%) SIR C and 3/56 (5%) SIR D. Among the pre-procedure US-aided skin-marking group, 139/198 (70%) complications were SIR A, 47/198 (24%) SIR B, 11/198 (6%) SIR C and 1/198 (1%) SIR D. Complications between the two groups were significantly different regarding SIR A (P<0.001) and SIR B complications (P<0.001) but not major complications. Multivariate regression demonstrated that complications were higher using US-aided pre-procedure skin-marking (odds ratio [OR]=6.30; 95% confidence interval [CI]=3.86, 10.27) than with US real-time guidance.

Conclusion

Children and young adults who underwent real-time US-guided percutaneous renal biopsies had significantly fewer minor complications, including those requiring follow-up medical care, compared to those who underwent percutaneous renal biopsies with pre-procedure US-aided skin-marking. No difference was detected in the incidence of major complications.

Keywords

Biopsy Children Complications Kidney Ultrasound Ultrasound guidance 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflicts of interest

None

References

  1. 1.
    Oates A, Ahuja S, Lee MM et al (2017) Pediatric renal transplant biopsy with ultrasound guidance: the 'core' essentials. Pediatr Radiol 47:1572–1579CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Omary RA, Bettmann MA, Cardella JF et al (2003) Quality improvement guidelines for the reporting and archiving of interventional radiology procedures. J Vasc Interv Radiol 14:S293–S295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Franke M, Kramarczyk A, Taylan C et al (2014) Ultrasound guided percutaneous renal biopsy in 295 children and adolescents: role of ultrasound and analysis of complications. PLoS One 9:e114737CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gulcu A, Goktay Y, Soylu A et al (2012) Doppler ultrasound evaluation of renal biopsy complications in children. Diagn Interv Radiol 19:15–19Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hussain F, Mallik M, Marks SD et al (2009) Renal biopsies in children: current practice and audit of outcomes. Nephrol Dial Transplant 25:485–489CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kamitsuji H, Yoshioka K, Ito H (1999) Percutaneous renal biopsy in children: survey of pediatric nephrologists in Japan. Pediatr Nephrol 13:693–696CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Printza N, Bosdou J, Pantzaki A et al (2011) Percutaneous ultrasound guided renal biopsy in children: a single Centre experience. Hippokratia 15:258–261Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Tondel C, Vikse BE, Bostad L, Svarstad E (2012) Safety and complications of percutaneous kidney biopsies in 715 children and 8,573 adults in Norway 1988–2010. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 7:1591–1597CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Angel W, Hawkins CM, Wang JM et al (2015) Percutaneous hepatic and renal biopsy procedures: an 18-year analysis of changing utilization, specialty roles, and sites of service. J Vasc Interv Radiol 26:680–685CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Berns JS, O'Neill WC (2008) Performance of procedures by nephrologists and nephrology fellows at U.S. nephrology training programs. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 3:941–947CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gupta RK, Balogun RA (2005) Native renal biopsies: complications and glomerular yield between radiologists and nephrologists. J Nephrol 18:553–558Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Maya ID, Maddela P, Barker J, Allon M (2007) Percutaneous renal biopsy: comparison of blind and real-time ultrasound guided technique. Semin Dial 20:355–358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Prasad N, Kumar S, Manjunath R et al (2015) Real-time ultrasound guided percutaneous renal biopsy with needle guide by nephrologists decreases post-biopsy complications. Clin Kidney J 8:151–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Al Rasheed SA, Al Mugeiren MM, Abdurrahman MB et al (1990) The outcome of percutaneous renal biopsy in children: an analysis of 120 consecutive cases. Pediatr Nephrol 4:600–603CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Efstratiadis G, Koukoudis P, Vergoulas G (2007) Announcements. Nephrol Dial Transplant 22:3365–3366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Antunes PR, Prado FF, de Souza FT et al (2018) Clinical complications in renal biopsy using two different needle gauges: the impact of large hematomas, a random clinical trial study. Int J Urol 25:544–548CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of RadiologyTexas Children’s HospitalHoustonUSA

Personalised recommendations