Sural biopsies should only be done as a very last resort!

And then? Only if the biopsy sample is handled with the utmost care and tested by the best labs available! Four/five years ago I looked into it as one neuro felt it MUST be done? Well, turned out more ‘samples’ were improperly handled than properly [by whatever standards the med. community had established] And, that many insurance companies were hesitant to cover this testing because of potential and often serious infections at the biopsy site- testing that yielded less than optimal results thru other convential testings.. The blood work, spinal work, MRI’s [to assure no other nerve impingement], the varied nerve conduction studies etc are much less invasive than the SURAL BIOPSY! The one doc who suggested it to me? I went NO WAY! Got all the other tests in and 7 out of 12 is pretty good! The risk is too great. -Not to mention? I felt this particular, somewhat new neuro wanted to ‘do one’ to get it on his resume’? He referred me to his mentor a neuro dept head at a local teaching hospital? Who went into our visit w/ a MUST DO BIOPSY attitude? But after I was done? He sent me a letter that stated NO, didn’t need to be done, That I was WELL ‘informed’ [thank you folks here? and elsewhere] and that I did NOT need a biopsy. Whew!
Now, if all tests were marginal? Then I mite consider it? But Truly if most test results say it’s a DUCK? It’s not likely to be a swan, ya know? Or, maybe new/more tests need to be done. There, enuf… but knowing is to know and learn more about the whole thing…. See if you can get into your ins. co’s web site and see what their policies are? Sometimes you can, other times not..Used to be easy, not so now. Good luck!!!!!!!!!!!