NeuroTalk Support Groups - Possible reason for incorrect skin biopsy results

NeuroTalk Support Groups (https://www.neurotalk.org/)

- Peripheral Neuropathy (https://www.neurotalk.org/peripheral-neuropathy/)

- - Possible reason for incorrect skin biopsy results - Therapth (https://www.neurotalk.org/peripheral-neuropathy/231502-reason-incorrect-skin-biopsy-results-therapth.html)

Quote:

Originally Posted by glenntaj, (Post 1196718)

--4mm by 8mm incision is NOT standard for a skin biopsy, which is generally a 3mm diameter, 1mm thick sample.
Given the location, it sounds more like they did the more invasive sural nerve biopsy to me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DavidHC (Post 1196754)

Mine was 3x1 too. 4x8 seems quite different, indicating inexperience or an entirely different biopsy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cliffman (Post 1196763)

It does sounds as if you may have had an actual nerve biopsy as opposed to a skin biopsy, which is not really invasive. That said, I'm no expert but I did have a skin biopsy. Perhaps you can go back to your doctor to double check what they did...either way I'm sorry to hear you have damage from the test.
Cliffman :)

Thanks for the replies.
According to the refferal and the test's results I am sure that I had a skin biopsy and not a nerve biopsy.
From what you wrote here and what I have previously read in this forum , it seems that my skin biopsy was done by a butcher!! It makes me furious :mad: :mad: :mad:

Butcher indeed! If that's the case, you have every right to be furious. So sorry. :(

Quote:

Originally Posted by stillHoping (Post 1196766)

I had the sural nerve biopsy in 1997 and it is VERY invasive. I don't think she had this because the sural nerve biopsy would be measured by cm not mm. My incision is about 5 cm long and they actually took 4 cm of sural nerve. No way this could have been done within 4-8 mm.

Quote:

Originally Posted by stillHoping (Post 1196766)

Here's a good (short) video about skin biopsy's at Mount Sinai Hospital in NYC. At the end of the video they mention a "team" approach for treatment, which I believe is sorely lacking in most demographic areas.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RcVsbhP8EFA

Also, the test (if done properly) should not be invasive; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e7lCzgx3xnU

Cliffman :)

way back in 2003 after my PN was confirmed by emg/ncs, the first test Columbia Presbyterian in Manhattan wanted to do was a sural nerve biopsy.....this was before any blood tests, mri's etc would be ordered. this didnt sound right to me so i did some research and talked to people on an old version of a board like this and as a result ran from columbia presbyterian and went to a different neurologist. They were definitely cut happy, at least at that time.