The University of Southampton
University of Southampton Institutional Repository

Out with the old and in with the new: a comparison of rectal suction biopsies with traditional and modern biopsy forceps

Out with the old and in with the new: a comparison of rectal suction biopsies with traditional and modern biopsy forceps
Out with the old and in with the new: a comparison of rectal suction biopsies with traditional and modern biopsy forceps
Aims

Rectal suction biopsy, the gold standard for the diagnosis of Hirschsprung disease, has been associated with a varying incidence of complications and inadequate biopsy. The rbi2 is a modern alternative to the ‘Noblett’ biopsy forceps and has recently become available. The aim of this study was to compare the performance of this novel tool with the Noblett forceps.

Methods

Single-center retrospective study of all infants (<1 year) undergoing rectal suction biopsy from January 2004 to December 2007. During the study period, 2 different biopsy forceps were used—the Noblett forceps (first 2.5 years) and the rbi2 (last 1.5 years). A specimen was defined as inadequate if it was too small or contained inadequate submucosa for histological diagnosis. Fisher's Exact test and Mann-Whitney U test were used as appropriate.

Results

During the study period, 238 specimens were obtained from 88 infants in 102 biopsy episodes. Overall, 13 episodes were inadequate. There were no demographic differences between the 2 groups, and no serious complications (hemorrhage requiring transfusion, rectal perforation, pelvic sepsis) occurred in any infant. A significantly higher proportion of specimens taken with the Noblett forceps were inadequate compared with the rbi2 (Noblett 30/153 [20%] vs rbi2 6/85 [7%]; Relative risk (RR) = 2.8; 95% confidence interval, 1.2-6.3; P = .01). There was a nonsignificantly higher incidence of inadequate biopsy episode with the Noblett forceps compared with the rbi2 (Noblett 10/63 [16%] vs rbi2 3/40 [7%]; RR = 2.2; 95% confidence interval, 0.6-7.3; P = .24). The rbi2 carries a small cost premium for each biopsy episode compared with the Noblett forceps, but this is low when compared with the cost of repeat biopsy.

Conclusions

Rectal suction biopsy is a safe procedure with a low incidence of complications. The rbi2 offers superior efficacy over the Noblett forceps, and its use is likely to be more cost-effective.
hirschsprung disease, rectal suction biopsy, infant, neonate
0022-3468
395-398
Hall, Nigel J.
6919e8af-3890-42c1-98a7-c110791957cf
Kufeji, D.
ac6f265c-a412-4af7-a945-4d1c0cb14092
Keshtgar, A.
43f4c6c8-daed-4530-b889-c2d7aa0ffb4a
Hall, Nigel J.
6919e8af-3890-42c1-98a7-c110791957cf
Kufeji, D.
ac6f265c-a412-4af7-a945-4d1c0cb14092
Keshtgar, A.
43f4c6c8-daed-4530-b889-c2d7aa0ffb4a

Hall, Nigel J., Kufeji, D. and Keshtgar, A. (2009) Out with the old and in with the new: a comparison of rectal suction biopsies with traditional and modern biopsy forceps. Journal of Pediatric Surgery, 44 (2), 395-398. (doi:10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2008.10.093). (PMID:19231542)

Record type: Article

Abstract

Aims

Rectal suction biopsy, the gold standard for the diagnosis of Hirschsprung disease, has been associated with a varying incidence of complications and inadequate biopsy. The rbi2 is a modern alternative to the ‘Noblett’ biopsy forceps and has recently become available. The aim of this study was to compare the performance of this novel tool with the Noblett forceps.

Methods

Single-center retrospective study of all infants (<1 year) undergoing rectal suction biopsy from January 2004 to December 2007. During the study period, 2 different biopsy forceps were used—the Noblett forceps (first 2.5 years) and the rbi2 (last 1.5 years). A specimen was defined as inadequate if it was too small or contained inadequate submucosa for histological diagnosis. Fisher's Exact test and Mann-Whitney U test were used as appropriate.

Results

During the study period, 238 specimens were obtained from 88 infants in 102 biopsy episodes. Overall, 13 episodes were inadequate. There were no demographic differences between the 2 groups, and no serious complications (hemorrhage requiring transfusion, rectal perforation, pelvic sepsis) occurred in any infant. A significantly higher proportion of specimens taken with the Noblett forceps were inadequate compared with the rbi2 (Noblett 30/153 [20%] vs rbi2 6/85 [7%]; Relative risk (RR) = 2.8; 95% confidence interval, 1.2-6.3; P = .01). There was a nonsignificantly higher incidence of inadequate biopsy episode with the Noblett forceps compared with the rbi2 (Noblett 10/63 [16%] vs rbi2 3/40 [7%]; RR = 2.2; 95% confidence interval, 0.6-7.3; P = .24). The rbi2 carries a small cost premium for each biopsy episode compared with the Noblett forceps, but this is low when compared with the cost of repeat biopsy.

Conclusions

Rectal suction biopsy is a safe procedure with a low incidence of complications. The rbi2 offers superior efficacy over the Noblett forceps, and its use is likely to be more cost-effective.

This record has no associated files available for download.

More information

Published date: February 2009
Keywords: hirschsprung disease, rectal suction biopsy, infant, neonate
Organisations: Human Development & Health

Identifiers

Local EPrints ID: 378468
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/378468
ISSN: 0022-3468
PURE UUID: 95d506b6-4d39-4654-9756-d3bb8279f6b5
ORCID for Nigel J. Hall: ORCID iD orcid.org/0000-0001-8570-9374

Catalogue record

Date deposited: 07 Jul 2015 16:11
Last modified: 15 Mar 2024 03:38

Export record

Altmetrics

Contributors

Author: Nigel J. Hall ORCID iD
Author: D. Kufeji
Author: A. Keshtgar

Download statistics

Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.

View more statistics

Atom RSS 1.0 RSS 2.0

Contact ePrints Soton: eprints@soton.ac.uk

ePrints Soton supports OAI 2.0 with a base URL of http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/cgi/oai2

This repository has been built using EPrints software, developed at the University of Southampton, but available to everyone to use.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we will assume that you are happy to receive cookies on the University of Southampton website.

×