Purpose
To determine whether there is any benefit in diagnostic accuracy, reduction in
periprocedural complications, when image-guided biopsies are performed by
interventional radiologist as compared to a general radiologist or other physician
without prior special interventional training.
Patients and Methods
This study is a retrospective chart review of all consecutive patients that underwent
imaging-guided core biopsies during one year in our hospital. Information collected
included: patient age, gender, coagulation status, organ biopsied, imaging modality
and equipment used, number of samples obtained, post-biopsy complications,
histopathological results, and previous interventional training of a physician performing
the biopsy. The quantitative data from patient charts was analyzed using a statistical
program, Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS).
Results
449 patients were included in this study: 132 were performed using Computed
Tomography guidance and 317 were performed under ultrasound guidance.
The success rate of core biopsies was compared between different specialists, and
was measured based on periprocedural complications, necessity of medical
intervention and/or hospitalization after biopsy procedure, true positive histopathology
results, and need to perform repeat biopsy of the same lesion owing to inconclusive
results. Overall, IR had a success rate of 88.13%, non-IR had a success rate of
61.07%, and nephrologists had a success rate of 77.65%. The post biopsy
complication rates were 5.48%, 27.52%, and 17.65% for procedures performed by IR,
non-IR, and nephrologists respectively.
Conclusion
Our study shows an overall higher success rate and improved patient outcome when
image guided biopsies were performed by IR, as compared to other non-IR physicians.