Preview

Urology Herald

Advanced search

Renal biopsy: assessing safety and efficacy in diverse renal pathologies

https://doi.org/10.21886/2308-6424-2025-13-6-51-59

Abstract

Introduction. Renal biopsy is a common procedure in patients with nephrological and onco-urological diseases. Histopathological examination of renal tissue is performed to clarify the diagnosis and stage of the pathological process, to guide treatment strategy, and to assess prognosis. Thus, renal biopsy has become an integral component of current clinical practice for a wide range of renal disorders.

Objective. To assess the safety and diagnostic effectiveness of renal biopsy in various pathological conditions and to analyze the spectrum, patterns, and risk factors of post‑biopsy complications.

Materials & methods. A retrospective analysis was performed of patients who underwent percutaneous kidney biopsy between January 2018 and September 2023. The study included 1,201 patients aged 18 to 84 years. Biopsy for a renal tumor was performed in 24 (2.1%) patients, and 1,177 (97.9%) patients underwent biopsy for nephrological indications (evaluation of renal disease or characterization of renal dysfunction, including renal failure). Post‑biopsy events were graded according to the Clavien–Dindo classification. A complication was considered severe if it required interventions such as blood transfusion or radiological or surgical procedures.

Results. Of the 1,201 patients, 625 (52%) were men (mean age 57 ± 15 years) and 576 (48%) were women (mean age 55 ± 17 years). The diagnostic yield did not differ between patients from whom two or more cores were obtained; its value increased from 83% to 91% and was significantly higher than in cases with only one core (46.4%, p = 0.002). Post‑biopsy complications occurred in 122 patients. Major complications were observed in 15 (1.2%) patients; 1 patient (0.08%) required urgent nephrectomy, and 9 (0.7%) underwent angiography with renal artery embolization. No procedure‑related deaths were recorded. In most cases (n = 112; 91.8%), clinically relevant changes were detected within the first 6 hours after biopsy. The highest complication rates were observed in women, in younger patients, in those with higher azotemia, and in patients with elevated INR and reduced prothrombin index values; complications were also more frequent in patients with arterial hypertension. Blood transfusion corresponded to Clavien–Dindo grade III–IV complications. The incidence of complications in the postoperative period was higher in patients who required four needle passes (p = 0.044).

Conclusion. Kidney biopsy is a minimally invasive and generally safe procedure. Obtaining two cores of renal tissue is sufficient to ensure adequate diagnostic yield while minimizing the risk of complications. Careful pre‑procedural assessment and correction of modifiable risk factors (such as arterial hypertension and coagulopathy), together with close monitoring for at least six hours after the procedure, helps keep the risk of post‑biopsy complications to a minimum.

About the Authors

S. B. Petrov
Pavlov First St. Petersburg State Medical University
Россия

Sergei B. Petrov – Dr. Sc. (Med), Full Prof.

Saint Petersburg



V. D. Yakovlev
Pavlov First St. Petersburg State Medical University
Россия

Vladislav D. Yakovlev – Cand. Sc. (Med)

Saint Petersburg



A. S. Mkrtchyan
Pavlov First St. Petersburg State Medical University
Россия

Arsen S. Mkrtchyan

Saint Petersburg



V. A. Dobronravov
Pavlov First St. Petersburg State Medical University
Россия

Vladimir A. Dobronravov – Dr. Sc. (Med)

Saint Petersburg



S. Y. Konyashkina
Pavlov First St. Petersburg State Medical University
Россия

Svetlana Yu. Konyashkina

Saint Petersburg



S. A. Reva
Pavlov First St. Petersburg State Medical University
Россия

Sergei A. Reva – Dr. Sc. (Med)

Saint Petersburg



References

1. Cameron JS, Hicks J. The introduction of renal biopsy into nephrology from 1901 to 1961: a paradigm of the forming of nephrology by technology. Am J Nephrol. 1997;17(3-4):347-358. DOI: 10.1159/000169122

2. Bandari J, Fuller TW, Turner Іі RM, D’Agostino LA. Renal biopsy for medical renal disease: indications and contraindications. Can J Urol. 2016;23(1):8121-8126. PMID: 26892051

3. Jason Abel E. Percutaneous biopsy facilitates modern treatment of renal masses. Abdom Radiol (NY). 2016;41(4):617-619. Erratum in: Abdom Radiol (NY). 2016;41(10):2087. DOI: 10.1007/s00261-016-0644-8

4. Marconi L, Dabestani S, Lam TB, Hofmann F, Stewart F, Norrie J, Bex A, Bensalah K, Canfield SE, Hora M, Kuczyk MA, Merseburger AS, Mulders PFA, Powles T, Staehler M, Ljungberg B, Volpe A. Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Diagnostic Accuracy of Percutaneous Renal Tumour Biopsy. Eur Urol. 2016;69(4):660-673. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2015.07.072

5. Richard PO, Lavallée LT, Pouliot F, Komisarenko M, Martin L, Lattouf JB, Finelli A. Is Routine Renal Tumor Biopsy Associated with Lower Rates of Benign Histology following Nephrectomy for Small Renal Masses? J Urol. 2018;200(4):731-736. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2018.04.015

6. Tøndel C, Vikse BE, Bostad L, Svarstad E. Safety and complications of percutaneous kidney biopsies in 715 children and 8573 adults in Norway 1988-2010. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2012;7(10):1591-1597. DOI: 10.2215/CJN.02150212

7. Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA. Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg. 2004;240(2):205-213. DOI: 10.1097/01.sla.0000133083.54934.ae

8. Kawaguchi T, Nagasawsa T, Tsuruya K, Miura K, Katsuno T, Morikawa T, Ishikawa E, Ogura M, Matsumura H, Kurayama R, Matsumoto S, Marui Y, Hara S, Maruyama S, Narita I, Okada H, Ubara Y; Committee of Practical Guide for Kidney Biopsy 2019. A nationwide survey on clinical practice patterns and bleeding complications of percutaneous native kidney biopsy in Japan. Clin Exp Nephrol. 2020;24(5):389-401. Erratum in: Clin Exp Nephrol. 2020;24(5):402-403. DOI: 10.1007/s10157-020-01869-w

9. EAU Guidelines. Edn. presented at the EAU Annual Congress Amsterdam; 2023.

10. Campbell S, Uzzo RG, Allaf ME, Bass EB, Cadeddu JA, Chang A, Clark PE, Davis BJ, Derweesh IH, Giambarresi L, Gervais DA, Hu SL, Lane BR, Leibovich BC, Pierorazio PM. Renal Mass and Localized Renal Cancer: AUA Guideline. J Urol. 2017;198(3):520-529. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2017.04.100

11. Abel EJ, Culp SH, Matin SF, Tamboli P, Wallace MJ, Jonasch E, Tannir NM, Wood CG. Percutaneous biopsy of primary tumor in metastatic renal cell carcinoma to predict high risk pathological features: comparison with nephrectomy assessment. J Urol. 2010;184(5):1877-1881. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2010.06.105

12. Hara I, Miyake H, Hara S, Arakawa S, Hanioka K, Kamidono S. Role of percutaneous image-guided biopsy in the evaluation of renal masses. Urol Int. 2001;67(3):199-202. DOI: 10.1159/000050987

13. Izumi K, Narimoto K, Sugimoto K, Kobori Y, Maeda Y, Mizokami A, Koh E, Yamada T, Yano S, Namiki M. The role of percutaneous needle biopsy in differentiation of renal tumors. Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2010;40(11):1081-1086. DOI: 10.1093/jjco/hyq076


Review

For citations:


Petrov S.B., Yakovlev V.D., Mkrtchyan A.S., Dobronravov V.A., Konyashkina S.Y., Reva S.A. Renal biopsy: assessing safety and efficacy in diverse renal pathologies. Urology Herald. 2025;13(6):51-59. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.21886/2308-6424-2025-13-6-51-59

Views: 66

JATS XML


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.


ISSN 2308-6424 (Online)