Case report of pseudoaneurysm caused by core needle biopsy of the breast.
ABSTRACT We treated a patient with a pseudoaneurysm caused by core needle biopsy (CNB), in which both the cancer and the aneurysm were excised by breast conservation therapy. A 51-year-old woman attended a local hospital because of a 25-mm mass in the upper outer quadrant of the right breast. CNB was performed, and brisk bleeding occurred at the biopsy site. Immediate hemostasis was achieved with direct manual compression. CNB detected fatty tissue, and a diagnosis could not be made. When she presented at our hospital 6 weeks later, there was a 25-mm pulsating mass at the biopsy site. Color-flow Doppler US and dynamic MRI showed a breast tumor and pseudoaneurysm formation. For the purpose of diagnosis and treatment of the breast tumor and pseudoaneurysm, lumpectomy of the right breast was performed. Histological diagnosis was papillotubular carcinoma and pseudoaneurysm. Although this condition is relatively rare, it is important to be aware of the possibility of complications, such as pseudoaneurysms, which require treatment.
- [show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: To determine factors associated with complications in patients undergoing renal transplant biopsy. A total of 210 consecutive renal transplant patients biopsied for acute graft dysfunction or as part of a long term surveillance programme. Biopsies were performed under ultrasound control at two centres (Nottingham City and Leicester General Hospitals). Seventeen patients developed macroscopic haematuria following biopsy (8%). There were no graft losses. In cases where at least one biopsy core contained only renal medullary tissue, there was a significantly higher risk of a post-biopsy bleed (P < 0.001). This study demonstrates that even with careful ultrasound guidance, renal transplant biopsy has an important complication rate. Every effort must be made to obtain very superficial biopsies which consist largely or exclusively of renal cortex.British Journal of Urology 01/1994; 73(1):13-5.
- American Journal of Roentgenology 10/1996; 167(3):817. · 2.90 Impact Factor
- American Journal of Roentgenology 11/2002; 179(4):924-6. · 2.90 Impact Factor