Advertisement

Virchows Archiv

, Volume 468, Issue 1, pp 69–74 | Cite as

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

  • Ivan DamjanovEmail author
  • Semir Vranic
  • Faruk Skenderi
Annual Review Issue

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.

Keywords

Pathology Surgical specimen Gross examination Histopathologic evaluation Exempt from submission 

References

  1. 1.
    Rosai J (2007) Why microscopy will remain a cornerstone of surgical pathology. Lab Investig 87:403–408. doi: 10.1038/labinvest.3700551 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 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. 3.
    Leslie KO, Rosai J (1994) Standardization of the surgical pathology report: formats, templates, and synoptic reports. Semin Diagn Pathol 11:253–257PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 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. 43–78Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Organizations JCoAH (1998) 1998–1999 Comprehensive accreditation manual for pathology & clinical laboratory services campcls. Joint Commission on Accreditation Healthcare Organizations, Oakbrooke Terrace, pp. 173–174Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Wolkomir AF, Barone JE, Moser RL (1991) Selective microscopic examination of gallbladders, hernia sacs, and appendices. Am Surg 57:289–292PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Raab SS (1998) The cost-effectiveness of routine histologic examination. Am J Clin Pathol 110:391–396PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 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 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sewell WAC (2005) Histopathology and cytopathology of limited or no clinical value. Royal College of Pathologists, UKGoogle Scholar
  10. 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, NorthfieldGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Zarbo R, Nakhleh RE (1999) Surgical pathology specimens for gross examination only and exempt from submission. Arch Lab Med Pathol 123:133–139Google Scholar
  12. 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 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 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 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 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 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 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 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 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 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 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 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 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 13:1214–1221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 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 24:660–663CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 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 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 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 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Siddiqui K, Nazir Z, Ali SS, Pervaiz S (2004) Is routine histological evaluation of pediatric hernial sac necessary? Pediatr Surg Int 20:133–135CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 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 46:117PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 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 186:1620–1624CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Langston C, Kaplan C, Macpherson T, Manci E (1997) Practice guideline for examination of the placenta. Arch Pathol Lab Med 121:449PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Gersell DJ (1998) ASCP survey on placental examination. American Society of Clinical Pathologists. Am J Clin Pathol 109:127–143PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 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 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 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. 30.
    Cataldo PA, JM MK (1992) The necessity of routine pathologic evaluation of hemorrhoidectomy specimens. Surg Gynecol Obstet 174:302–304PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 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 28:659–661CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Pathology and Laboratory MedicineThe University of Kansas School of MedicineKansas CityUSA
  2. 2.Department of Pathology, Clinical CenterUniversity of SarajevoSarajevoBosnia and Herzegovina

Personalised recommendations