Biopsy is a key step in the diagnosis of bone and soft tissue tumours. An inadequately performed biopsy may fail to allow proper diagnosis. An improperly planned biopsy may jeopardise plans for limb salvage surgery.

Aims: To analyse the effectiveness of core-needle biopsy for evaluation of suspected primary musculoskeletal neoplasms.

Methods: Core-needle biopsy was performed at our institution in 130 consecutive patients suspected of having a mesenchymal neoplasm. Details of the biopsy and any additional procedures were recorded including size of sample, method of localisation and any complications. Clinical and histological features of the neoplasm and previous radiological or histological diagnosis were compared. Core-needle biopsy results were correlated with results from specimens subsequently obtained at definitive surgery.

Results: 130 consecutive core biopsies were performed for evaluation of suspected primary musculoskeletal neoplasms. All patients tolerated the procedure well and there were no significant complications. A definitive diagnosis was obtained from a single core biopsy in 107 (82%) patients; an additional biopsy was necessary in 24 (18%) following equivocal histology. Twenty-three (96%) of these repeat biopsies were an open procedure. In 98% of patients, core-needle biopsy results were concordant with results from specimens subsequently obtained at surgery with respect to tumour histological features and grade. The accuracy and rate of performance of open biopsy for soft tissue lesions were not significantly different from those for bone lesions.

Conclusions: Obtaining tissue safely, for diagnosis of bone and soft tissue tumours is the goal of all biopsies The biopsy, however, must be well planned so as to avoid creating inadvertent tumour spread, and take into consideration any subsequent approaches for limb-sparing surgery.

Aims: To investigate the prevalence and significance of a high-intensity zone in a group of patients asymptomatic for low back pain.

Methods: A prospective observational study of the prevalence of abnormal MR imaging in normal volunteers without a significant history of back pain. All volunteers underwent physical examination, psychometric testing, plain radiograph, magnetic resonance imaging, and dexa scanning. Films were blindly assessed for the prevalence of degenerative disc disease, osteoporosis, high intensity zone, disc prolapse and spinal stenosis.

Results: Following history, clinical examination and psychometric testing 13 of 63 (20%) patients were excluded from the study on the basis of previous back injury, leg pain or abnormal clinical findings. 50 volunteers were eligible for inclusion in the study. The presence of a high-intensity zone or annular disruption was determined by standardised criteria on T2-wieghted magnetic resonance images. The prevalence of a high-intensity zone in the patient population was 12 of 50 patients (24%). 32% of all disc prolapses were at the L4/5 level, 33% were at L5/S1 and 17% were at L3/4 the remainder were at various other levels.

Conclusions: The presence of a high-intensity zone does not reliably indicate the presence of symptomatic internal disc disruption. Magnetic resonance imaging is accurate in determining nuclear anatomy, however positive findings do not always correlate with history and clinical findings. The presence of abnormal imaging in asymptomatic patients reinforces the need for a detailed history and clinical examination in the evaluation of the lumbar spine.