<?xml version="1.0" encoding="ISO-8859-1"?><article xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance">
<front>
<journal-meta>
<journal-id>2183-1351</journal-id>
<journal-title><![CDATA[Acta Radiológica Portuguesa]]></journal-title>
<abbrev-journal-title><![CDATA[Acta Radiol Port]]></abbrev-journal-title>
<issn>2183-1351</issn>
<publisher>
<publisher-name><![CDATA[Sociedade Portuguesa de Radiologia e Medicina Nuclear]]></publisher-name>
</publisher>
</journal-meta>
<article-meta>
<article-id>S2183-13512024000300012</article-id>
<article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.25748/arp.35343</article-id>
<title-group>
<article-title xml:lang="en"><![CDATA[Percutaneous Vertebral Biopsies - Case-Based Description of a Single Centre Experience]]></article-title>
<article-title xml:lang="pt"><![CDATA[Biópsias Percutâneas Vertebrais - Experiência do nosso Centro]]></article-title>
</title-group>
<contrib-group>
<contrib contrib-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Gonçalves]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[João]]></given-names>
</name>
<xref ref-type="aff" rid="Aff"/>
<xref ref-type="aff" rid="Aaf"/>
</contrib>
<contrib contrib-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Kuroedov]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[Danila]]></given-names>
</name>
<xref ref-type="aff" rid="Aff"/>
</contrib>
<contrib contrib-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Pamplona]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[Jaime]]></given-names>
</name>
<xref ref-type="aff" rid="Aff"/>
</contrib>
<contrib contrib-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Fragata]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[Isabel]]></given-names>
</name>
<xref ref-type="aff" rid="Aff"/>
</contrib>
<contrib contrib-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Reis]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[João]]></given-names>
</name>
<xref ref-type="aff" rid="Aff"/>
</contrib>
</contrib-group>
<aff id="Af1">
<institution><![CDATA[,Centro Hospitalar Universitário Lisboa Central Neuroradiology Department ]]></institution>
<addr-line><![CDATA[Lisbon ]]></addr-line>
<country>Portugal</country>
</aff>
<aff id="Af2">
<institution><![CDATA[,Hospital Central do Funchal, SESARAM Neuroadiology Department ]]></institution>
<addr-line><![CDATA[Funchal ]]></addr-line>
<country>Portugal</country>
</aff>
<pub-date pub-type="pub">
<day>00</day>
<month>12</month>
<year>2024</year>
</pub-date>
<pub-date pub-type="epub">
<day>00</day>
<month>12</month>
<year>2024</year>
</pub-date>
<volume>36</volume>
<numero>3</numero>
<fpage>12</fpage>
<lpage>15</lpage>
<copyright-statement/>
<copyright-year/>
<self-uri xlink:href="http://scielo.pt/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&amp;pid=S2183-13512024000300012&amp;lng=en&amp;nrm=iso"></self-uri><self-uri xlink:href="http://scielo.pt/scielo.php?script=sci_abstract&amp;pid=S2183-13512024000300012&amp;lng=en&amp;nrm=iso"></self-uri><self-uri xlink:href="http://scielo.pt/scielo.php?script=sci_pdf&amp;pid=S2183-13512024000300012&amp;lng=en&amp;nrm=iso"></self-uri><abstract abstract-type="short" xml:lang="en"><p><![CDATA[Abstract Introduction: Percutaneous spine biopsy has widely replaced open surgical biopsy for the last 50 years. Non-invasive biopsy is more cost effective and has fewer complications than open procedures. We reviewed our single center experience in percutaneous spinal biopsies to evaluate their diagnostic yield and safety. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 240 percutaneous vertebral biopsies performed at our tertiary center, in a 4-year period. Collected variables included diagnostic imaging techniques, vertebral segment, location of biopsy, histopathological results, adjunct treatment and complications. Results: 102 (42.5%) of patients were female, with an average age of 68. Fluoroscopy was the most used technique (99%, n=237). The majority of our procedures were performed on the lumbar spine, representing 47% (n=112) of the total biopsies. In 93% of biopsies (n=223) we attained sufficient samples for histological analysis. Out of the 240 biopsies, 18 (7.5%) had to be repeated, of which 14 (78%) had diagnostic yield. Histologically, 28% (n=67) of samples had no pathological changes and 27% (n=65) yielded the diagnosis of metastatic disease. We performed adjunct treatment with vertebroplasty in 19% (n=46) of cases following biopsy. Only one patient had a clinically significant complication following the procedure. Conclusion: Percutaneous vertebral biopsy is an important tool in the evaluation of vertebral body lesions, and adjacent paravertebral tissues, and can be performed with minimal morbidity and high diagnostic yield as an outpatient procedure. In line with the literature, most of the biopsy samples in our study were adequate for histopathological analysis, and metastatic lesions were the most common finding.]]></p></abstract>
<abstract abstract-type="short" xml:lang="pt"><p><![CDATA[Resumo Introdução: A biópsia percutânea vertebral tem substituído a biópsia cirúrgica aberta nos últimos 50 anos. A biópsia não-invasiva é mais custo-efetiva e tem menos complicações quando comparada com procedimentos abertos. Realizou-se uma revisão das biópsias percutâneas vertebrais realizadas no nosso centro para avaliar o yield diagnóstico e a segurança. Métodos: Analisou-se retrospetivamente 240 biópsias vertebrais percutâneas realizadas no nosso centro terciário durante 4 anos. As variáveis adquiridas incluíram técnica diagnóstica de imagem, segmento vertebral, localização da biópsia, resultados histopatológicos, tratamento adjuvante e complicações. Resultados: 102 (42,5%) dos pacientes eram mulheres, com uma média de 68 anos. A técnica mais utilizada foi a fluoroscopia (99%, n=237). A maioria dos procedimentos foi realizado no segmento lombar, representando 47% (n=112), seguido do segmento torácico (42%, n=100). Obtivemos amostra suficiente para análise histológica em 93%. Das 240 biópsias, 18 (7,5%) tiveram de ser repetidas, tendo-se obtido um diagnóstico em 14 (78%). Histologicamente, em 28% (n=67) das amostras não se obteve alterações patológicas e em 27% (n=65) confirmou-se doença metastática. Realizou-se vertebroplastia em 19% (n=46) dos casos após a biópsia. Apenas um paciente teve uma complicação clinicamente significativa secundária ao procedimento. Conclusão: A biópsia vertebral percutânea é uma importante ferramenta na avaliação de lesões vertebrais e dos tecidos paravertebrais adjacentes, e pode ser realizada com baixa morbilidade e alta taxa de deteção como um procedimento de ambulatório. Em conformidade com a literatura, a maior parte das nossas amostras eram adequadas para análise histopatológica e o achado mais comum foi lesão metastática.]]></p></abstract>
<kwd-group>
<kwd lng="pt"><![CDATA[Vertebral]]></kwd>
<kwd lng="pt"><![CDATA[Biopsy]]></kwd>
<kwd lng="pt"><![CDATA[Fluoroscopy]]></kwd>
<kwd lng="pt"><![CDATA[CT.]]></kwd>
<kwd lng="en"><![CDATA[Vertebral]]></kwd>
<kwd lng="en"><![CDATA[Biopsy]]></kwd>
<kwd lng="en"><![CDATA[Fluoroscopy]]></kwd>
<kwd lng="en"><![CDATA[CT.]]></kwd>
</kwd-group>
</article-meta>
</front><back>
<ref-list>
<ref id="B1">
<label>1</label><nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Dupuy]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[DE]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Rosenberg]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[AE]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Punyaratabandhu]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[T]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Tan]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[MH]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Mankin]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[HJ]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<article-title xml:lang=""><![CDATA[Accuracy of CT-guided needle biopsy of musculoskeletal neoplasms]]></article-title>
<source><![CDATA[American Journal of Roentgenology]]></source>
<year>1998</year>
<volume>171</volume>
<page-range>759-62</page-range></nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B2">
<label>2</label><nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Nourbakhsh]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[A]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Grady]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[JJ]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Garges]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[KJ]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<article-title xml:lang=""><![CDATA[Percutaneous spine biopsy: a meta-analysis]]></article-title>
<source><![CDATA[The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery-American Volume]]></source>
<year>2008</year>
<volume>90</volume>
<page-range>1722-5</page-range></nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B3">
<label>3</label><nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Wu]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[JS]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Goldsmith]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[JD]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Horwich]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[PJ]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Shetty]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[SK]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Hochman]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[MG]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<article-title xml:lang=""><![CDATA[Bone and soft-tissue lesions: what factors affect diagnostic yield of image-guided core-needle biopsy?]]></article-title>
<source><![CDATA[Radiology]]></source>
<year>2008</year>
<volume>248</volume>
<page-range>962-70</page-range></nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B4">
<label>4</label><nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Yang]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[SY]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Oh]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[E]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Kwon]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[JW]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Kim]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[HS]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<article-title xml:lang=""><![CDATA[Percutaneous image-guided spinal lesion biopsies: factors affecting higher diagnostic yield]]></article-title>
<source><![CDATA[American Journal of Roentgenology]]></source>
<year>2018</year>
<volume>211</volume>
<page-range>1068-74</page-range></nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B5">
<label>5</label><nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Nam]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[KH]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Song]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[GS]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Han]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[IH]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Choi]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[BK]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Cha]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[SH]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<article-title xml:lang=""><![CDATA[Diagnostic value of biopsy techniques in lumbar spondylodiscitis: percutaneous needle biopsy and open biopsy]]></article-title>
<source><![CDATA[Korean J Spine]]></source>
<year>2011</year>
<volume>8</volume>
<page-range>267</page-range></nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B6">
<label>6</label><nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Yapici]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[F]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Atici]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[Y]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Balioglu]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[MB]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Albayrak]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[A]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Kargin]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[D]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Akman]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[YE]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<article-title xml:lang=""><![CDATA[A comparison of two techniques: open and percutaneous biopsies of thoracolumbar vertebral body lesions]]></article-title>
<source><![CDATA[J Craniovertebr Junction Spine]]></source>
<year>2015</year>
<volume>6</volume>
<page-range>36-9</page-range></nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B7">
<label>7</label><nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Pneumaticos]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[SG]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Chatziioannou]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[SN]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Savvidou]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[C]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Pilichou]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[A]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Rontogianni]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[D]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Korres]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[DS]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<article-title xml:lang=""><![CDATA[Routine needle biopsy during vertebral augmentation procedures. Is it necessary?]]></article-title>
<source><![CDATA[European Spine Journal]]></source>
<year>2010</year>
<volume>19</volume>
<page-range>1894-8</page-range></nlm-citation>
</ref>
</ref-list>
</back>
</article>
