Evaluating bone biopsy quality by technique in an animal model
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 re...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Elsevier
2022-06-01
|
| Series: | Research in Diagnostic and Interventional Imaging |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2772652522000084 |
| _version_ | 1827304261113872384 |
|---|---|
| author | Corey K Ho, MD David Gimarc, MD Hsieng-Feng Carroll, PhD Michael Clay, MD Jeffrey Schowinsky, MD MK Jesse, MD Amanda M Crawford, MD Carrie B Marshall, MD |
| author_facet | Corey K Ho, MD David Gimarc, MD Hsieng-Feng Carroll, PhD Michael Clay, MD Jeffrey Schowinsky, MD MK Jesse, MD Amanda M Crawford, MD Carrie B Marshall, MD |
| author_sort | Corey K Ho, MD |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | 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. |
| first_indexed | 2024-04-24T17:26:49Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-4471a187fb6a455fb1d8aafe822bba83 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2772-6525 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-04-24T17:26:49Z |
| publishDate | 2022-06-01 |
| publisher | Elsevier |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Research in Diagnostic and Interventional Imaging |
| spelling | doaj.art-4471a187fb6a455fb1d8aafe822bba832024-03-28T06:39:30ZengElsevierResearch in Diagnostic and Interventional Imaging2772-65252022-06-012100008Evaluating bone biopsy quality by technique in an animal modelCorey K Ho, MD0David Gimarc, MD1Hsieng-Feng Carroll, PhD2Michael Clay, MD3Jeffrey Schowinsky, MD4MK Jesse, MD5Amanda M Crawford, MD6Carrie B Marshall, MD7University of Colorado – Anschutz Medical Campus, Department of Radiology, 12401 E 17th Ave, Aurora, CO 80045, USA; Corresponding author: Corey K Ho, University of Colorado, Anschutz Medical Campus, 12401 E 17th Ave, Aurora, CO 80045 USA. 973-219-3591University of Colorado – Anschutz Medical Campus, Department of Radiology, 12401 E 17th Ave, Aurora, CO 80045, USAUniversity of Colorado – Anschutz Medical Campus, Department of Radiology, 12401 E 17th Ave, Aurora, CO 80045, USAUniversity of Colorado – Anschutz Medical Campus, Department of Pathology, 12401 E 17th Ave, Aurora, CO 80045, USAUniversity of Colorado – Anschutz Medical Campus, Department of Pathology, 12401 E 17th Ave, Aurora, CO 80045, USAUniversity of Colorado – Anschutz Medical Campus, Department of Radiology, 12401 E 17th Ave, Aurora, CO 80045, USAUniversity of Utah – Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, University of Utah Hospital, 50 2030 E, Salt Lake City, UT 84132, USAUniversity of Colorado – Anschutz Medical Campus, Department of Pathology, 12401 E 17th Ave, Aurora, CO 80045, USARationale 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.http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2772652522000084BoneBiopsyArtifact |
| spellingShingle | Corey K Ho, MD David Gimarc, MD Hsieng-Feng Carroll, PhD Michael Clay, MD Jeffrey Schowinsky, MD MK Jesse, MD Amanda M Crawford, MD Carrie B Marshall, MD Evaluating bone biopsy quality by technique in an animal model Research in Diagnostic and Interventional Imaging Bone Biopsy Artifact |
| title | Evaluating bone biopsy quality by technique in an animal model |
| title_full | Evaluating bone biopsy quality by technique in an animal model |
| title_fullStr | Evaluating bone biopsy quality by technique in an animal model |
| title_full_unstemmed | Evaluating bone biopsy quality by technique in an animal model |
| title_short | Evaluating bone biopsy quality by technique in an animal model |
| title_sort | evaluating bone biopsy quality by technique in an animal model |
| topic | Bone Biopsy Artifact |
| url | http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2772652522000084 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT coreykhomd evaluatingbonebiopsyqualitybytechniqueinananimalmodel AT davidgimarcmd evaluatingbonebiopsyqualitybytechniqueinananimalmodel AT hsiengfengcarrollphd evaluatingbonebiopsyqualitybytechniqueinananimalmodel AT michaelclaymd evaluatingbonebiopsyqualitybytechniqueinananimalmodel AT jeffreyschowinskymd evaluatingbonebiopsyqualitybytechniqueinananimalmodel AT mkjessemd evaluatingbonebiopsyqualitybytechniqueinananimalmodel AT amandamcrawfordmd evaluatingbonebiopsyqualitybytechniqueinananimalmodel AT carriebmarshallmd evaluatingbonebiopsyqualitybytechniqueinananimalmodel |