Department of Rheumatology, Royal Melbourne Hospital, Australia.
Department of Rheumatology, St Vincent's Hospital Melbourne, Australia; Department of Medicine, The University of Melbourne, Australia.
Semin Arthritis Rheum. 2024 Oct;68:152519. doi: 10.1016/j.semarthrit.2024.152519. Epub 2024 Jul 15.
Muscle biopsy is an important test in the evaluation of individuals with suspected myopathy, including those with suspected idiopathic inflammatory myopathy (IIM). Various approaches, including open surgical biopsy, needle biopsy and conchotome forceps, have been reported. However the real-world utilisation of these approaches remains unclear. There are no established guidelines for the use of muscle biopsy, or selection of biopsy technique, in investigating IIM and international practices are not well-documented. This study describes current approaches to muscle biopsy amongst clinicians with expertise in IIM.
A survey regarding muscle biopsy practices was disseminated among members of the International Myositis Assessment and Clinical Studies (IMACS) group. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics.
One-hundred and sixteen clinicians completed the survey, primarily rheumatologists. Open surgical biopsy was the most commonly employed technique (74.5 %), followed by needle (11.3 %) and conchotome (9.4 %) approaches. Clinical examination was the most common method of muscle selection, with 85.2 % of respondents reporting they 'always or almost always' relied on it. MRI and electromyography were also frequently utilised for muscle selection (51.9 %, 45.4 % respectively). There was variability in the perceived utility of muscle biopsy in certain clinical contexts, such as presence of myositis specific antibodies or cutaneous manifestations of dermatomyositis. While respondents generally reported low complication rates following muscle biopsy, non-diagnostic histopathology was commonly reported, regardless of procedural approach.
Clinicians managing IIM report muscle biopsy to be well tolerated however, non-diagnostic results are common. Substantial heterogeneity regarding perceived indications for biopsy, procedural approaches, and muscle selection strategies were observed within this expert group. Future research is needed to establish best practice and determine the role of muscle biopsy in the context of continued advancements in serological profiling of IIM.
肌肉活检是评估疑似肌病患者(包括疑似特发性炎性肌病患者)的重要检查手段。已有报道采用多种方法进行活检,包括开放式外科活检、细针活检和康乔氏活检钳。然而,目前这些方法的实际应用情况尚不清楚。目前尚无关于肌病活检的使用指南,也未制定选择活检技术的标准,且国际实践也未得到很好的记录。本研究描述了特发性炎性肌病临床专家目前采用的肌肉活检方法。
在国际肌炎评估和临床研究(IMACS)小组的成员中,发放了一份关于肌肉活检实践的调查问卷。采用描述性统计方法对数据进行分析。
116 名临床医生完成了调查,他们主要是风湿病学家。开放式外科活检是最常用的技术(74.5%),其次是细针活检(11.3%)和康乔氏活检钳(9.4%)。临床检查是最常用的肌肉选择方法,85.2%的受访者报告他们“总是或几乎总是”依赖这种方法。磁共振成像(MRI)和肌电图(EMG)也常用于肌肉选择(分别为 51.9%和 45.4%)。在某些临床情况下,肌肉活检的实用性存在差异,例如存在肌炎特异性抗体或皮肌炎的皮肤表现。尽管受访者普遍报告肌肉活检后并发症发生率较低,但无论采用何种程序方法,都经常报告非诊断性组织病理学结果。
管理特发性炎性肌病的临床医生报告称,肌肉活检耐受性良好,但结果通常不可诊断。在这个专家组中,观察到对活检适应证、程序方法和肌肉选择策略的看法存在很大的异质性。需要进一步的研究来确定最佳实践,并确定肌肉活检在特发性炎性肌病的血清学分析不断进步的背景下的作用。