Evaluating bone biopsy quality by technique in an animal model

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

Research in Diagnostic and Interventional Imaging (Jun 2022)

Evaluating bone biopsy quality by technique in an animal model

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

Affiliations

Corey K Ho, MD: University 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. 973-219-3591
David Gimarc, MD: University of Colorado – Anschutz Medical Campus, Department of Radiology, 12401 E 17th Ave, Aurora, CO 80045, USA
Hsieng-Feng Carroll, PhD: University of Colorado – Anschutz Medical Campus, Department of Radiology, 12401 E 17th Ave, Aurora, CO 80045, USA
Michael Clay, MD: University of Colorado – Anschutz Medical Campus, Department of Pathology, 12401 E 17th Ave, Aurora, CO 80045, USA
Jeffrey Schowinsky, MD: University of Colorado – Anschutz Medical Campus, Department of Pathology, 12401 E 17th Ave, Aurora, CO 80045, USA
MK Jesse, MD: University of Colorado – Anschutz Medical Campus, Department of Radiology, 12401 E 17th Ave, Aurora, CO 80045, USA
Amanda M Crawford, MD: University of Utah – Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, University of Utah Hospital, 50 2030 E, Salt Lake City, UT 84132, USA
Carrie B Marshall, MD: University of Colorado – Anschutz Medical Campus, Department of Pathology, 12401 E 17th Ave, Aurora, CO 80045, USA

Journal volume & issue: Vol. 2
p. 100008

Abstract

Read online

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.

Published in Research in Diagnostic and Interventional Imaging

ISSN: 2772-6525 (Online)
Publisher: Elsevier
Country of publisher: France
LCC subjects: Medicine: Medicine (General)
Website: https://www.sciencedirect.com/journal/research-in-diagnostic-and-interventional-imaging

About the journal

Abstract

Keywords