Objective-This study aimed to determine the usefulness of sural nerve biops
y in neurological practice.
Methods-The first prospective study of sural nerve biopsy in 50 consecutive
patients was undertaken. The investigating neurologist declared the prebio
psy diagnosis and management plan and after 3 months an independent neurolo
gist evaluated the contribution of the biopsy to diagnosis and management.
An independent audit officer sought information from the patient about the
adverse effects and value of the biopsy after 6 weeks and 6 months.
Results-In seven cases the nerve biopsy changed the diagnosis, in 35 cases
the biopsy confirmed the suspected diagnosis, and in eight cases the biopsy
was noncontributory. The biopsy either changed or was helpful in guiding p
atient management in 60%, especially those with demyelinating neuropathy an
d multiple mononeuropathy. Seven patients reported having had infection and
10 reported increased pain at the biopsy site 6 months later.
Conclusion-In a consecutive series of 50 cases, sural nerve biopsy altered
the diagnosis in 14%, affected management in 60%, and caused persistent inc
reased pain at the biopsy site in 33%.