Karen Cormier1, Mohammad Kamran Shahid1, Gabor Fischer1, Eric Bohm1. 1. From the Department of Pathology, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Man. (Cormier, Fischer); the Royal London Hospital (Barts Health NHS Trust), London, U.K. (Shahid); and George and Fay Yee Centre for Healthcare Innovation, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Man. (Bohm).
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Many practices require tissues from hip and knee arthroplasty procedures to be sent for pathologic examination. These examinations rarely provide information beyond the clinical or radiologic diagnosis and rarely alter clinical management. We aimed to determine the rate at which histologic diagnoses based on gross assessment alone or gross plus microscopic assessment correspond with reported clinical diagnoses in patients undergoing total joint arthroplasties and whether the histologic diagnoses alter patient management. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed arthroplasty cases performed at a high-volume teaching hospital in Manitoba, Canada. The clinical diagnosis was compared with the final pathology report based on gross examination, with or without histologic assessment. The results of the comparison were classified into 3 categories: concordant (same diagnosis), discrepant (different diagnoses without alterations in management) and discordant (different diagnoses resulting in management change). The overall provincial cost for pathologic examination was determined by multiplying the total examination cost by the estimated number of arthroplasty cases. RESULTS: There were 773 patients in our study sample. The concordant rate was 98.3% (95% confidence interval [CI] 97.1%-99.1%), the discrepant rate was 1.7% (95% CI 0.9%-2.9%) and the discordant rate was 0.0% (95% CI 0%-0.5%) for 773 cases. The pathology diagnosis did not alter patient management in any case. A total of 91.5% of specimens did not require full histologic review and received gross descriptions only. The discrepancy rate was higher in cases that included microscopic examination than in those that received only gross descriptions (15.2% v. 0.4%, p < 0.001). The overall provincial cost for pathologic examination was estimated at Can$304 556. CONCLUSION: Submitting routine tissue from arthroplasty procedures to pathology does not affect patient management and therefore provides no value for the health care resources expended in doing so.
BACKGROUND: Many practices require tissues from hip and knee arthroplasty procedures to be sent for pathologic examination. These examinations rarely provide information beyond the clinical or radiologic diagnosis and rarely alter clinical management. We aimed to determine the rate at which histologic diagnoses based on gross assessment alone or gross plus microscopic assessment correspond with reported clinical diagnoses in patients undergoing total joint arthroplasties and whether the histologic diagnoses alter patient management. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed arthroplasty cases performed at a high-volume teaching hospital in Manitoba, Canada. The clinical diagnosis was compared with the final pathology report based on gross examination, with or without histologic assessment. The results of the comparison were classified into 3 categories: concordant (same diagnosis), discrepant (different diagnoses without alterations in management) and discordant (different diagnoses resulting in management change). The overall provincial cost for pathologic examination was determined by multiplying the total examination cost by the estimated number of arthroplasty cases. RESULTS: There were 773 patients in our study sample. The concordant rate was 98.3% (95% confidence interval [CI] 97.1%-99.1%), the discrepant rate was 1.7% (95% CI 0.9%-2.9%) and the discordant rate was 0.0% (95% CI 0%-0.5%) for 773 cases. The pathology diagnosis did not alter patient management in any case. A total of 91.5% of specimens did not require full histologic review and received gross descriptions only. The discrepancy rate was higher in cases that included microscopic examination than in those that received only gross descriptions (15.2% v. 0.4%, p < 0.001). The overall provincial cost for pathologic examination was estimated at Can$304 556. CONCLUSION: Submitting routine tissue from arthroplasty procedures to pathology does not affect patient management and therefore provides no value for the health care resources expended in doing so.
Authors: Patrick M Chesley; George E Black; Matthew J Martin; Eric K Johnson; Justin A Maykel; Scott R Steele Journal: Am J Surg Date: 2015-02-12 Impact factor: 2.565
Authors: Eline W Zwitser; Arthur de Gast; Mirjam J A Basie; Folkert J van Kemenade; Barend J van Royen Journal: BMC Musculoskelet Disord Date: 2009-05-20 Impact factor: 2.362