Literature DB >> 19669232

Value of routine histopathologic examination of three common surgical specimens: appendix, gallbladder, and hemorrhoid.

Varut Lohsiriwat1, Akkarash Vongjirad, Darin Lohsiriwat.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to assess the need for a routine histopathologic examination of three common surgical specimens (appendix, gallbladder, hemorrhoid) and its impact on the further management of the patients.
METHODS: Histopathologic reports of patients undergoing appendectomy, cholecystectomy, or hemorrhoidectomy performed between 1998 and 2006 in the Faculty of Medicine, Siriraj Hospital were reviewed. The reports were excluded if patients had a clinical diagnosis or suspicion of malignancy. The incidence of unexpected pathologic diagnoses and their impact on postoperative management were evaluated.
RESULTS: Of 4545 appendectomy specimens, 44 (0.97%) revealed incidental unexpected pathological diagnoses, including one adenocarcinoma and one primary appendiceal lymphoma. About one-fifth of such unexpected appendiceal findings had an impact on postoperative treatment. Unexpected pathologic gallbladder findings were found in 88 (2%) of 4317 cholecystectomy specimens. Gallbladder cancer (GBC) was detected in 24 specimens (0.56%). A clinical diagnosis of empyema and patient's age over 60 years were two significant risk factors for an unexpected GBC [odds ratio (OR) 11.0, 95% confidence interval (CI) 4.2-29.2 and OR 6.2, 95% CI 2.1-18.2, respectively]. About one-fourth of patients with unexpected gallbladder findings required further management. Of 914 hemorrhoidectomy specimens, there were 13 (1.4%) histologic abnormalities other than the usually expected lesions in hemorrhoids. None of these altered postoperative management.
CONCLUSIONS: The routine histopathology examination of the appendix and gallbladder, particularly in cases of empyema and patient's age over 60 years, is of value for identifying unsuspected conditions requiring further postoperative management. However, routine histopathologic evaluation of the hemorrhoid seems unnecessary.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19669232     DOI: 10.1007/s00268-009-0164-6

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  World J Surg        ISSN: 0364-2313            Impact factor:   3.352


  20 in total

1.  CAP offers recommendations on selecting surgical specimens for examination.

Authors:  P Fitzgibbons; K Cleary
Journal:  CAP Today       Date:  1996-07

2.  Proactive management of histopathology workloads: analysis of the UK Royal College of Pathologists' recommendations on specimens of limited or no clinical value on the workload of a teaching hospital gastrointestinal pathology service.

Authors:  S S Cross; J L Stone
Journal:  J Clin Pathol       Date:  2002-11       Impact factor: 3.411

3.  Pathology service and practice: solo-practice pathologist in a community hospital in Japan: personal experience and a proposal for cost- and time-effective practice.

Authors:  Tetsuya Murata
Journal:  Pathol Int       Date:  2006-08       Impact factor: 2.534

4.  Enhancing the pathologist's role at hospital tumor boards.

Authors:  Stephen L Strobel
Journal:  Ann Clin Lab Sci       Date:  2006       Impact factor: 1.256

Review 5.  Pathologic evaluation of routine tonsillectomy and adenoidectomy specimens in the pediatric population: is it really necessary?

Authors:  Taner K Erdag; M Cenk Ecevit; E Alpin Guneri; Ersoy Dogan; Ahmet O Ikiz; Semih Sutay
Journal:  Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2005-10       Impact factor: 1.675

6.  Gallbladder cancer in a high risk area: morphological features and spread patterns.

Authors:  I Roa; J C Araya; M Villaseca; J Roa; X de Aretxabala; G Ibacache
Journal:  Hepatogastroenterology       Date:  1999 May-Jun

7.  Unsuspected gallbladder cancer diagnosed during or after laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Authors:  A-Hon Kwon; Atsushi Imamura; Hiroaki Kitade; Yasuo Kamiyama
Journal:  J Surg Oncol       Date:  2008-03-01       Impact factor: 3.454

8.  Is there any justification for the routine histological examination of straightforward cholecystectomy specimens?

Authors:  B Darmas; S Mahmud; A Abbas; A L Baker
Journal:  Ann R Coll Surg Engl       Date:  2007-04       Impact factor: 1.891

9.  Epidemiology of gallbladder cancer and trends in cholecystectomy rates in Scotland, 1968-1998.

Authors:  R Wood; L A Fraser; D H Brewster; O J Garden
Journal:  Eur J Cancer       Date:  2003-09       Impact factor: 9.162

10.  The value of routine histopathological examination of appendicectomy specimens.

Authors:  Alun E Jones; Alexander W Phillips; John R Jarvis; Kevin Sargen
Journal:  BMC Surg       Date:  2007-08-10       Impact factor: 2.102

View more
  25 in total

1.  All cholecystectomy specimens must be sent for histopathology to detect inapparent gallbladder cancer.

Authors:  Anil K Agarwal; Raja Kalayarasan; Shivendra Singh; Amit Javed; Puja Sakhuja
Journal:  HPB (Oxford)       Date:  2012-02-26       Impact factor: 3.647

2.  Do We Still Need to Perform Routine Histological Examination of Appendectomy Specimens?

Authors:  Salman Yousuf Guraya
Journal:  J Clin Diagn Res       Date:  2015-06-01

3.  Routine versus selective histological examination after cholecystectomy to exclude incidental gallbladder carcinoma.

Authors:  C D Emmett; P Barrett; A D Gilliam; A I Mitchell
Journal:  Ann R Coll Surg Engl       Date:  2015-08-14       Impact factor: 1.891

Review 4.  Histological assessment of cholecystectomy specimens performed for symptomatic cholelithiasis: routine or selective?

Authors:  J A S B Jayasundara; W M M de Silva
Journal:  Ann R Coll Surg Engl       Date:  2013-07       Impact factor: 1.891

Review 5.  Routine histopathology for carcinoma in cholecystectomy specimens not evidence based: a systematic review.

Authors:  Hilko A Swank; Irene M Mulder; Wim C Hop; Marc J van de Vijver; Johan F Lange; Willem A Bemelman
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2013-07-23       Impact factor: 4.584

6.  Histopathological findings in appendectomy specimens: a study of 24,697 cases.

Authors:  Slim Charfi; Ahmad Sellami; Abdellatif Affes; Khalil Yaïch; Rafik Mzali; Tahya Sellami Boudawara
Journal:  Int J Colorectal Dis       Date:  2014-07-02       Impact factor: 2.571

Review 7.  Does everything a surgeon takes out have to be seen by a pathologist? A review of the current pathology practice.

Authors:  Ivan Damjanov; Semir Vranic; Faruk Skenderi
Journal:  Virchows Arch       Date:  2015-07-09       Impact factor: 4.064

8.  Incidental findings during routine pathological evaluation of gallbladder specimens: review of 1,747 elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy cases.

Authors:  F Basak; M Hasbahceci; T Canbak; A Sisik; A Acar; M Yucel; G Bas; O Alimoglu
Journal:  Ann R Coll Surg Engl       Date:  2016-02-29       Impact factor: 1.891

9.  Routine histopathological examination of appendectomy specimens in children: is there any rationale?

Authors:  Rizwan A Khan; Imran Ghani; Rajendra S Chana
Journal:  Pediatr Surg Int       Date:  2011-05-26       Impact factor: 1.827

10.  Histopathological Examination of Gallbladder Specimens in Kumaon Region of Uttarakhand.

Authors:  Sanjeev Kumar Shukla; Prabhat Pant; Govind Singh; K S Shahi
Journal:  J Gastrointest Cancer       Date:  2020-03
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.