OBJECTIVE: The lymph node number as benchmark in oncologic operations depends on the patient's anatomy, surgeon's skill and pathologist's accuracy. The influence of the pathologist is barely evaluated. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of lymph node numbers after 700 laparoscopic lymphadenectomies in correlation to the examining pathologists was done. Three surgeons from the same department performed all operations at 2 campi, where 2 separate pathology institutions exist. Lymph node specimens were assigned randomly to any of the 62 involved pathologists. RESULTS: The mean number of lymph nodes was equal for all surgeons. Lymph node specimens were analyzed in the pathology institute of campus I and II in 416 and 284 cases, respectively. The mean number of lymph nodes following pelvic and para-aortic lymphadenectomy was 36 at campus II and 30 at campus I (p < 0.0001). There was also a significant difference for pelvic (19.9 vs. 17.7; p < 0.0001) and para-aortic lymph node counts (16.2 vs. 14.1; p < 0.01) between both pathology institutes. At campus II, 22.6% of lymph node counts did not meet the oncologic standard for pelvic and 16.7% did not meet the standard for para-aortic lymph nodes. Moreover, at campus I, 35.5 and 20.8% of pathologists described less than the oncologic limit of pelvic and para-aortic lymph nodes, respectively. CONCLUSION: The number of removed lymph nodes is not an absolute parameter for surgical radicality. Interdisciplinary cooperation with pathologists is mandatory to meet oncologic standards.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: The lymph node number as benchmark in oncologic operations depends on the patient's anatomy, surgeon's skill and pathologist's accuracy. The influence of the pathologist is barely evaluated. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of lymph node numbers after 700 laparoscopic lymphadenectomies in correlation to the examining pathologists was done. Three surgeons from the same department performed all operations at 2 campi, where 2 separate pathology institutions exist. Lymph node specimens were assigned randomly to any of the 62 involved pathologists. RESULTS: The mean number of lymph nodes was equal for all surgeons. Lymph node specimens were analyzed in the pathology institute of campus I and II in 416 and 284 cases, respectively. The mean number of lymph nodes following pelvic and para-aortic lymphadenectomy was 36 at campus II and 30 at campus I (p < 0.0001). There was also a significant difference for pelvic (19.9 vs. 17.7; p < 0.0001) and para-aortic lymph node counts (16.2 vs. 14.1; p < 0.01) between both pathology institutes. At campus II, 22.6% of lymph node counts did not meet the oncologic standard for pelvic and 16.7% did not meet the standard for para-aortic lymph nodes. Moreover, at campus I, 35.5 and 20.8% of pathologists described less than the oncologic limit of pelvic and para-aortic lymph nodes, respectively. CONCLUSION: The number of removed lymph nodes is not an absolute parameter for surgical radicality. Interdisciplinary cooperation with pathologists is mandatory to meet oncologic standards.