Related Experiment Video
Updated: Apr 28, 2026
Laparoscopic Anatomical Resection of the Right Anterior Lobe Based on the Laennec Capsule Technique
Published on: May 2, 2025
Liver biopsy: Analysis of results of two specialist teams
Giulia Anania1, Elia Gigante1, Matteo Piciucchi1
1Giulia Anania, Elia Gigante, Matteo Piciucchi, Flavia Baccini, Giulio Antonelli, Paola Begini, Gianfranco Delle Fave, Massimo Marignani, Department of Digestive and Liver Disease, School of Medicine and Psychology University "Sapienza", 00189 Rome, Italy.
Aim:
To analyze the safety and the adequacy of a sample of liver biopsies (LB) obtained by gastroenterologist (G) and interventional radiologist (IR) teams.
Methods:
Medical records of consecutive patients evaluated at our GI unit from 01/01/2004 to 31/12/2010 for whom LB was considered necessary to diagnose and/or stage liver disease, both in the setting of day hospital and regular admission (RA) care, were retrieved and the data entered in a database. Patients were divided into two groups: one undergoing an ultrasonography (US)-assisted procedure by the G team and one undergoing US-guided biopsy by the IR team. For the first group, an intercostal approach (US-assisted) and a Menghini modified type needle 16 G (length 90 mm) were used. The IR team used a subcostal approach (US-guided) and a semiautomatic modified Menghini type needle 18 G (length 150 mm). All the biopsies were evaluated for appropriateness according to the current guidelines. The number of portal tracts present in each biopsy was assessed by a revision performed by a single pathologist unaware of the previous pathology report. Clinical, laboratory and demographic patient characteristics, the adverse events rate and the diagnostic adequacy of LB were analyzed.
Results:
During the study period, 226 patients, 126 males (56%) and 100 females (44%), underwent LB: 167 (74%) were carried out by the G team, whereas 59 (26%) by the IR team. LB was mostly performed in a day hospital setting by the G team, while IR completed more procedures on inpatients (P < 0.0001). The groups did not differ in median age, body mass index (BMI), presence of comorbidities and coagulation parameters. Complications occurred in 26 patients (16 G team vs 10 IR team, P = 0.15). Most gross samples obtained were considered suitable for basal histological evaluation, with no difference among the two teams (96.4% G team vs 91.5% IR, P = 0.16). However, the samples obtained by the G team had a higher mean number of portal tracts (G team 9.5 ± 4.8; range 1-29 vs IR team 7.8 ± 4.1; range 1-20) (P = 0.0192) and a longer mean length (G team 22 mm ± 8.8 vs IR team 15 ± 6.5 mm) (P = 0.0001).
Conclusion:
LB can be performed with similar outcomes both by G and IR. Use of larger dimension needles allows obtaining better samples, with a similar rate of adverse events.
