Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Annual Review Issue
  • Published:
Virchows Archiv Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Histopathologic examination of surgically removed tissues and organs is an important aspect of modern hospital quality health care. Most surgical specimens deserve to be submitted for pathologic examination, which may yield valuable new information relevant for the future treatment of the patient. A small number of specimens, recognized as providing limited or no valuable clinical data during pathologic examination, may be placed on the list of specimens “exempt from submission” or those that are labeled as “for gross examination only.” Guidelines written by the committees of the national regulatory organizations provide general orientation on how to deal with various specimens, but the final decision on which type of specimen to eliminate and which ones to include for pathologic examination rests on local governing and advisory bodies of each institution. Particular lists of specimens exempt from pathologic examination are best generated through a consensus agreement of clinical and laboratory physicians. Even though there is general nationwide and even international consensus on which types of specimens deserve pathologic examination and which do not, there are still discussions about the necessity of some pathologic examinations.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Rosai J (2007) Why microscopy will remain a cornerstone of surgical pathology. Lab Investig 87:403–408. doi:10.1038/labinvest.3700551

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Lott R, Tunnicliffe J, Sheppard E, Santiago J, Hladik C, Nasim M, Zeitner K, Haas T, Kohl S, Movahedi-Lankarani S (2015) Pre-microscopic examination specimen handling guidelines in the surgical pathology laboratory. http://www.cap.org/apps/docs/proficiency_testing/pre-examination.pdf. Accessed 15 May 2015

  3. Leslie KO, Rosai J (1994) Standardization of the surgical pathology report: formats, templates, and synoptic reports. Semin Diagn Pathol 11:253–257

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. MacEachern MT (1927) Hospital standardization: report on hospital standardization for the year 1926. American College of Surgeons: Fourteenth Year Book. American College of Surgeons, Chicago, pp. 43–78

    Google Scholar 

  5. Organizations JCoAH (1998) 1998–1999 Comprehensive accreditation manual for pathology & clinical laboratory services campcls. Joint Commission on Accreditation Healthcare Organizations, Oakbrooke Terrace, pp. 173–174

    Google Scholar 

  6. Wolkomir AF, Barone JE, Moser RL (1991) Selective microscopic examination of gallbladders, hernia sacs, and appendices. Am Surg 57:289–292

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Raab SS (1998) The cost-effectiveness of routine histologic examination. Am J Clin Pathol 110:391–396

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Matthyssens LE, Ziol M, Barrat C, Champault GG (2006) Routine surgical pathology in general surgery. Br J Surg 93:362–368. doi:10.1002/bjs.5268

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Sewell WAC (2005) Histopathology and cytopathology of limited or no clinical value. Royal College of Pathologists, UK

    Google Scholar 

  10. Zarbo RJ, Nakhleh RE (1997) Q-probes 97-02:specimens for gross examination or exempt for submission: data analysis and critique. College of American Pathologists, Northfield

    Google Scholar 

  11. Zarbo R, Nakhleh RE (1999) Surgical pathology specimens for gross examination only and exempt from submission. Arch Lab Med Pathol 123:133–139

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Lewandrowski K, Black-Schaffer S (2014) Utilization management in anatomic pathology. Clin Chim Acta 427:183–187. doi:10.1016/j.cca.2013.09.032

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Swank HA, Mulder IM, Hop WC, van de Vijver MJ, Lange JF, Bemelman WA (2013) Routine histopathology for carcinoma in cholecystectomy specimens not evidence based: a systematic review. Surg Endosc 27:4439–4448. doi:10.1007/s00464-013-3084-3

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Deng YL, Xiong XZ, Zhou Y, Shrestha A, Li FY, Cheng NS (2015) Selective histology of cholecystectomy specimens—is it justified? J Surg Res 193:196–201. doi:10.1016/j.jss.2014.07.039

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Elshaer M, Gravante G, Yang Y, Hudson S, Thomas K, Sorge R, Al-Hamali S, Kelkar A, Ebdewi H (2014) Routine versus selective histologic analysis of gallbladder specimens for the detection of incidental gallbladder cancers. A retrospective review over 9 years of activity with a special focus on patients’ age. Am J Surg 208:444–449. doi:10.1016/j.amjsurg.2013.12.038

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Lohsiriwat V, Vongjirad A, Lohsiriwat D (2009) Value of routine histopathologic examination of three common surgical specimens: appendix, gallbladder, and hemorrhoid. World J Surg 33:2189–2193. doi:10.1007/s00268-009-0164-6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Marudanayagam R, Williams GT, Rees BI (2006) Review of the pathological results of 2660 appendicectomy specimens. J Gastroenterol 41:745–749. doi:10.1007/s00535-006-1855-5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Swank H, Eshuis E, Ubbink D, Bemelman W (2011) Is routine histopathological examination of appendectomy specimens useful? A systematic review of the literature. Color Dis 13:1214–1221

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Desai AA, Knott EM, Alemayehu H, Sherman AK, St. Peter SD, Ostlie DJ (2014) Histologic analysis of the hernia sac: current practices based on a survey of IPEG members. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech 24:660–663

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Zarbo RJ, Nakhleh RE (1999) Surgical pathology specimens for gross examination only and exempt from submission: a College of American Pathologists Q-probes study of current policies in 413 institutions. Arch Pathol Lab Med 123:133–139. doi:10.1043/0003-9985(1999)123<0133:SPSFGE>2.0.CO;2

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Chesley PM, Black GE, Martin MJ, Johnson EK, Maykel JA, Steele SR (2015) The utility of pathologic evaluation of adult hernia specimens. Am J Surg 209:783–786. doi:10.1016/j.amjsurg.2014.12.019

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Al Nemer AM, Al-Buainain H (2014) The necessity of routine histologic examination of hernia sac, revisited. Hernia. doi:10.1007/s10029-014-1338-1

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Siddiqui K, Nazir Z, Ali SS, Pervaiz S (2004) Is routine histological evaluation of pediatric hernial sac necessary? Pediatr Surg Int 20:133–135

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Miller GG, McDonald SE, Milbrandt K, Chibbar R (2003) Routine pathological evaluation of tissue from inguinal hernias in children is unnecessary. Can J Surg 46:117

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Kim B, Leonard MP, Bass J, Ruzhynsky V, de Nanassy J, Guerra L (2011) Analysis of the clinical significance and cost associated with the routine pathological analysis of pediatric inguinal hernia sacs. J Urol 186:1620–1624

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Langston C, Kaplan C, Macpherson T, Manci E (1997) Practice guideline for examination of the placenta. Arch Pathol Lab Med 121:449

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Gersell DJ (1998) ASCP survey on placental examination. American Society of Clinical Pathologists. Am J Clin Pathol 109:127–143

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Curtin WM, Krauss S, Metlay LA, Katzman PJ (2007) Pathologic examination of the placenta and observed practice. Obstet Gynecol 109:35–41. doi:10.1097/01.AOG.0000247646.19979.9f

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Odibo I, Gehlot A, Ounpraseuth ST, Magann EF (2015) Pathologic examination of the placenta and its clinical utility: a survey of obstetrics and gynecology providers. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 8:1–5. doi:10.3109/14767058.2014.998192

    Google Scholar 

  30. Cataldo PA, JM MK (1992) The necessity of routine pathologic evaluation of hemorrhoidectomy specimens. Surg Gynecol Obstet 174:302–304

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Lemarchand N, Tanne F, Aubert M, Benfredj P, Denis J, Dubois-Arnous N, Fellous K, Ganansia R, Senejoux A, Soudan D, Puy-Montbrun T (2004) Is routine pathologic evaluation of hemorrhoidectomy specimens necessary? Gastroenterol Clin Biol 28:659–661

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, The University of Kansas School of Medicine, 3901 Rainbow Blvd., Kansas City, KS, 66160, USA

    Ivan Damjanov

  2. Department of Pathology, Clinical Center, University of Sarajevo, Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina

    Semir Vranic & Faruk Skenderi

Authors
  1. Ivan Damjanov
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Semir Vranic
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Faruk Skenderi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ivan Damjanov.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Damjanov, I., Vranic, S. & Skenderi, F. Does everything a surgeon takes out have to be seen by a pathologist? A review of the current pathology practice. Virchows Arch 468, 69–74 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00428-015-1801-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00428-015-1801-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation