Well, if those are the guidelines, then I'm not sure you'd have much of a case. Mine, like the others from the US, was very shallow, 1-3 mm, but perhaps your physician was trying too get at "sweat glands, hair follicles, and artero-venous anastomosis", or would at least claim as much, if a complaint was filed.
I suppose if you could find some paperwork, evidence and such things that show the physician didn't check these other things, then you might have a case? But equally important would be to check the norms for the hospital or lab and the country or region.
I don't know what else to say. Perhaps someone else can be more helpful.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stillHoping
I’m thinking whether to file a complaint against the doctor who did my skin biopsy. I wrote about it here a few months ago.
On my biopsy report it was written that the sample’s diameter was 4mm and length 8mm.
The biopsy included epidermal and dermal structures (fibers innervating blood vessels, sweat glands, arrector pili muscles, etc.).
According to the replies on that discussion the biopsy size should be only about 3x1mm.
Is it right even when the biopsy includes the dermal structures ?
I searched for papers about it and most of the guidelines that I found describes the location and diameter but not the depth.
In a paper by Lauria, et al. 2010 - European Federation of Neurological Societies/Peripheral Nerve Society Guideline on the use of skin biopsy in the diagnosis of small fiber neuropathy.
Is written –
“Skin biopsy is most commonly performed using a 3-mm disposable punch under sterile technique, after topical anesthesia with lidocaine. No suture is required. A shallow biopsy (3–4 mm) is adequate to study epidermal nerve fibers, whereas a deeper biopsy (6–8 mm) is required to include sweat glands, hair follicles, and artero-venous anastomosis.”
So is there any chance that 8mm depth is reasonable for this test after all ?
Thanks! |