The cutting (w)edgecomparative evaluation of renal baseline biopsies obtained by two different methods

Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation

Volumn 27, Issue 8, 2012, Pages 3241-3248

  Bago Horvath, Zsuzsanna ^a   Kozakowski, Nicolas ^a   Soleiman, Afschin ^a   Bodingbauer, Martin ^a   Mühlbacher, Ferdinand ^a   Regele, Heinz ^a  

^a MEDICAL UNIVERSITY OF VIENNA   (Austria)

Author keywords

donor derived damage; kidney transplantation; punch biopsy; sample adequacy; wedge biopsy

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTERIOSCLEROSIS; ARTICLE; BIOPSY TECHNIQUE; CHILD; CHRONIC KIDNEY FAILURE; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC TEST ACCURACY STUDY; FEMALE; FIBROSING ALVEOLITIS; GLOMERULOSCLEROSIS; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; KIDNEY BIOPSY; KIDNEY DONOR; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; PRESCHOOL CHILD; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; PUNCH BIOPSY; WEDGE BIOPSY; ADOLESCENT; BIOPSY; COMPARATIVE STUDY; DONOR; EVALUATION; GLOMERULUS; GRAFT REJECTION; KIDNEY; KIDNEY TRANSPLANTATION; METHODOLOGY; MIDDLE AGED; PATHOLOGY; RENAL ARTERY; REPRODUCIBILITY; STANDARD; VASCULARIZATION;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; BIOPSY; CHILD; CHILD, PRESCHOOL; FEMALE; GRAFT REJECTION; HUMANS; KIDNEY; KIDNEY GLOMERULUS; KIDNEY TRANSPLANTATION; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; RENAL ARTERY; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; TISSUE DONORS; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84864582028     PISSN: 09310509     EISSN: 14602385     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/ndt/gfs066     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Gridelli B, Remuzzi G. Strategies for making more organs available for transplantation. N Engl J Med 2000; 343: 404-410.
2. Mueller TF, Solez K, Mas V. Assessment of kidney organ quality and prediction of outcome at time of transplantation. Semin Immunopathol 2011; 33: 185-199.
3. Gaber LW, Moore LW, Alloway RR et al. Glomerulosclerosis as a determinant of posttransplant function of older donor renal allografts. Transplantation 1995; 60: 334-339.
4. Randhawa PS, Minervini MI, Lombardero M et al. Biopsy of marginal donor kidneys: correlation of histologic findings with graft dysfunction. Transplantation 2000; 69: 1352-1357.
5. Escofet X, Osman H, Griffiths DF et al. The presence of glomerular sclerosis at time zero has a significant impact on function after cadaveric renal transplantation. Transplantation 2003; 75: 344-346.
6. Howie AJ, Ferreira MA, Lipkin GW et al. Measurement of chronic damage in the donor kidney and graft survival. Transplantation 2004; 77: 1058-1065.
7. Nankivell BJ, Fenton-Lee CA, Kuypers DR et al. Effect of histological damage on long-term kidney transplant outcome. Transplantation 2001; 71: 515-523.
8. Kayler LK, Mohanka R, Basu A et al. Correlation of histologic findings on preimplant biopsy with kidney graft survival. Transplantation 2008; 21: 892-898.
9. Malaise J, Cosyns JP, Lallier M et al. Baseline biopsy for the quality assessment of kidney graft. Curr Opin Organ Transplant 1999; 4: 139-142.
10. Racusen L, Solez K, Colvin RB et al. The Banff 97 working classification of renal allograft pathology. Kidney Int 1999; 55: 713-723.
11. Solez K, Colvin RB, Racusen LC et al. Banff 07 classification of renal allograft pathology: updates and future directions. Am J Transplant 2008; 8: 753-760.
12. Kahu J, Kyllönen L, Räisänen-Sokolowski A et al. Donor risk score and baseline biopsy CADI value predict kidney graft outcome. Clin Transplant 2011; 25: E276-E283.
13. Jochmans I, Pirenne J. Graft quality assessment in kidney transplantation: not an exact science yet!. Curr Opin Organ Transplant 2011; 16: 174-179.
14. Metzger RA, Delmonico FL, Feng S et al. Expanded criteria donors for kidney transplantation. Am J Transplant 2003; 3 (Suppl 4): 114-125.
15. Mazzucco G, Magnani C, Fortunato M et al. The reliability of pretransplant donor renal biopsies (PTDB) in predicting the kidney state. A comparative single-centre study on 154 untransplanted kidneys. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2010; 25: 3401-3408.
16. Sulikowski T, Tejchman K, Zi?tek Z et al. Histopathologic evaluation of pretransplantation biopsy as a factor influencing graft function after kidney transplantation in 3-year observation. Transplant Proc 2010; 42: 3375-3381.
17. Sund S, Reisaeter AV, Fauchald P et al. Living donor kidney transplants: a biopsy study 1 year after transplantation, compared with baseline changes and correlation to kidney function at 1 and 3 years. Nephrol Dial Transplant 1999; 14: 2445-2454.
18. Lubuska L, Bachleda P, Tichy T et al. Assessment of renal graft function depending on pre-transplant morphology. Biomed Pap Med Fac Univ Palacky Olomouc Czech Repub 2006; 150: 171-177.
19. Snoeijs MG, Boonstra LA, Buurman WA et al. Histological assessment of pre-transplant kidney biopsies is reproducible and representative. Histopathology 2010; 56: 198-202.
20. Böhmig GA, Regele H, Hörl WH. Protocol biopsies after kidney transplantation. Transpl Int 2005; 18: 131-139.
21. El-Husseini A, Sabry A, Zahran A et al. Can donor implantation renal biopsy predict long-term renal allograft outcome?. Am J Nephrol 2007; 27: 144-151.
22. Wang HJ, Kjellstrand CM, Cockfield SM et al. On the influence of sample size on the prognostic accuracy and reproducibility of renal transplant biopsy. Nephrol Dial Transplant 1998; 13: 165-172.
23. Muruve NA, Steinbecker KM, Luger AM. Are wedge biopsies of cadaveric kidneys obtained at procurement reliable?. Transplantation 2000; 69: 2384-2388.
24. Haas M, Segev DL, Racusen LC et al. Arteriosclerosis in kidneys from healthy live donors: comparison of wedge and needle core perioperative biopsies. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2008; 132: 37-42.
25. Yushkov Y, Dikman S, Alvarez-Casas J et al. Optimized technique in needle biopsy protocol shown to be of greater sensitivity and accuracy compared to wedge biopsy. Transplant Proc 2010; 42: 2493-2497.
26. Lopes JA, Moreso F, Riera L et al. Evaluation of pre-implantation kidney biopsies: comparison of Banff criteria to a morphometric approach. Kidney Int 2005; 67: 1595-1600.
27. Bosmans JL, Woestenburg A, Ysebaert DK et al. Fibrous intimal thickening at implantation as a risk factor for the outcome of cadaveric renal allografts. Transplantation 2000; 69: 2388-2394