Other features to keep in mind
in comparing the amount of tissue obtainable from
each stick of an 18 gauge needle versus a 14 gauge
needle are these:
With a 14-gauge needle the
width of the biopsy core is about three or four
times the width of a glomerulus, while with an
18-gauge needle the biopsy core is only slightly
wider than a single glomerulus.
This 3-to-1 or 4-to-1 ratio
between the diameter of the core of the 14 and 18
gauge needles is further and meaningfully magnified
when one considers that the total amount of tissue
obtained in a single stick is proportional to the
Square of the diameter of the core. Thus, a
biopsy which is two to three times greater
diameter, contains four to nine times more
tissue.
Since kidney biopsies are
ordinarily and routinely serially sectioned, the
amount of tissue actually observable and available
for evaluation is several fold greater in biopsies
obtained by larger gauge needles.
Multiple passes by an 18-gauge
needle are required to obtained the same sample size
which can be obtained by a single pass of a 14 gauge
needle.
The major risk of a kidney
biopsy, that of hemorrhage, is generally and perhaps
reasonably assumed to be greater with a needle of
larger caliber, but I am aware of no evidence which
establishes what the increased risk might be. I
strongly suspect that multiple passes with a smaller
gauge needle is at least equally likely to increase
the probability of excessive bleeding over that
associated with the fewer passes ordinarily required
using a larger gauge needle.
That an 18 gauge needle can and
often does neatly plug an small muscular artery is
well illustrated in the figure immediately above,
where a large portion of the wall of an interlobular
size artery is clearly shown to have been removed by
the biopsy needle.
An often amazing amount of
information is often obtained from a percutaneous
kidney biopsy.
The likelihood that a lesion or
lesions will be found is proportional to the amount
of tissue obtained.
In attempting to estimate the
risk-benefit ratio in the performance of the kidney
biopsy, the operating physician must bear in mind
the possible significance of missing meaningful
lesions which may be present.
A discussion of factors
involved in estimating how much biopsy tissue is
needed is included in
another section.
It is my deeply held conviction, that a kidney
biopsy is not truly adequately examined, unless
tissue is examined thoroughly by an experienced
pathologist, using the techniques of light
microscopy, immunofluorescence microscopy and
electron microscopy.
The clinical syndromes of medical renal
disease are many and complex, and for each one of
them, multiple underlying etiologies are possible.
Many patients have more than one pathologic process
in the kidney. Many disorders can ONLY be
diagnosed by electron microscopy and/or
immunofluorescence.
It is pertinent to know that a lesion is
present, and conversely, that it is not present.
You will not know, if you do not look, and
look carefully.