Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-skm99 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T12:06:32.762Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Complications of Sural Nerve Biopsy in Diabetic versus Non-Diabetic Patients

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 September 2015

James R. Perry
Affiliation:
Neuromuscular Laboratory, Toronto General Division, The Toronto Hospital, Toronto
Vera Bril*
Affiliation:
Neuromuscular Laboratory, Toronto General Division, The Toronto Hospital, Toronto
*
Division of Neurology, Eaton North 11-209, The Toronto Hospital, General Division, 200 Elizabeth Street, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5G 2C4
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract:

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

We compare complications from 66 sural nerve biopsies in 41 patients with diabetic peripheral neuropathy to 40 patients with neuropathy from other causes, using a retrospective telephone survey. Diabetic patients were followed for a mean of 6.8 years and non-diabetics for 5.6 years. Mild long-term pain was described by 18.9% of patients overall with no difference between groups. Mild persistent sensory symptoms, insufficient to interfere with daily activity or warrant medical therapy, were reported by 63.6% of diabetic and 27.5% of non-diabetic patients (p < 0.006). Wound infection and severe pain were uncommon in both groups and no different in diabetics. Significant complications of sural nerve biopsy occurred no more frequently in diabetic than in non-diabetic patients. While sural nerve biopsy plays no role in the routine evaluation of diabetic peripheral neuropathy, it may be performed without increased risk when indicated in these patients to exclude other causes of neuropathy and in the context of research trials.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Neurological Sciences Federation 1994

References

REFERENCES

1.Proceedings of a consensus development conference on standardized measures in diabetic neuropathy. Neurology 1992; 42: 18231939.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2.Dyck, PJ, Karnes, J, Lais, A. Pathologic alterations of the peripheral nervous system of humans. In: Dyck, PJ, Thomas, PK, Lambert, EH, Bunge, R, eds. Peripheral Neuropathy, second ed. Philadelphia: Sanders, 1985: 771777.Google Scholar
3.Thomas, PK. The quantitation of nerve biopsy findings. J Neurol Sci 1970; 11:285295.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4.Poburski, R, Malin, J-P, Stark, E. Sequelae of sural nerve biopsies. Clin Neurol Neurosurg 1985; 87: 193197.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5.Solders, G.Discomfort after fascicular sural nerve biopsy. Acta Neurol Scand 1988; 77: 503504.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6.Neundorfer, B, Grahamm, F, Engelhardt, A, Harte, U. Postoperative effects and value of sural nerve biopsies: a retrospective study. Eur Neurol 1990; 30: 350352.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7.Sima, AAF, Bril, V, Nathaniel, V, et al. Regeneration and repair of myelinated fibres in sural-nerve biopsy specimens from patients with diabetic neuropathy treated with sorbinil. N Engl J Med 1988; 319: 548555.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8.Asbury, AK, Connolly, ES. Sural nerve biopsy. Technical note. J Neurosurg 1973; 38: 391392.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9.Dyck, PJ, Lofgren, EP. Method of fascicular biopsy of human peripheral nerve for electrophysiologic and histologic study. Mayo Clin Proc 1966; 41: 778784.Google ScholarPubMed
10.Pollock, M, Nukada, H, Taylor, P, Donaldson, I, Carroll, G. Comparison between fascicular and whole sural nerve biopsy. Ann Neurol 1983; 13:6568.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11.Oh, SJ. Diagnostic usefulness and limitations of the sural nerve biopsy. Yonsei Med J 1990; 31: 126.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12.Dyck, PJ, Lofgren, EP. Nerve biopsy: choice of nerve, methods, symptoms, and usefulness. Med Clin North Am 1968; 52: 885893.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13.Appenzeller, O, Snyder, RD, Kornfeld, M. Sural nerve biopsies in pediatric neurological disorders. Dev Med Child Neurol 1970; 12:4248.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed