ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Percutaneous renal biopsy is a well-established diagnostic procedure in patients with underlying medical renal disease. Aim of this study is to compare the adequacy of the biopsy material, the diagnostic yield, and the complication rates of the trans-peritoneal laparoscopic approach and the image-guided percutaneous approach to renal biopsy in the diagnosis of native kidney disease. METHODS: We performed a matched-pair analysis matching 1:3 40 patients who underwent trans-peritoneal laparoscopic renal biopsy to 120 patients who underwent percutaneous renal biopsy in the same years. Patients were retrospectively analyzed. Differences in adequacy of biopsy material (i.e. number of glomeruli, continuous), diagnostic yield (categorical) and postoperative complications across the two groups were assessed using Wilcoxon Rank sum or χ2 test. RESULTS: Laparoscopic biopsy was associated with a higher number of harbored glomeruli (median 50, IQR 20-77) compared to the percutaneous approach (median 10, IQR 7-15), P<0.001. Adequate biopsies containing at least ten glomeruli were obtained in a significantly higher percentage of patients in the laparoscopic group versus the percutaneous group (92.5% vs. 57.1%, P<0.001). The laparoscopic approach was also associated with a significantly higher diagnostic yield than the percutaneous approach (82.5% vs. 63.5%, P=0.027). Patients who underwent laparoscopic biopsy had no perioperative or postoperative complications, resulting in a significantly lower complication rate than percutaneous biopsy (0% vs. 4%, P<0.001), particularly in the need for transfusion for post-procedure bleeding (0% vs. 1.8%, P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In this retrospective matched-pair analysis comparing patients undergoing renal biopsy for medical kidney disease, trans-peritoneal laparoscopic renal biopsy was safer and more effective for the diagnosis of medical renal diseases compared to percutaneous renal biopsy. Prospective trials with a good follow-up are needed to define the best candidate for each approach. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4.
