Routine surgical pathology in general surgery

Abstract

Background: Although pathological analysis provides the definitive diagnosis for most resection specimens, recent evidence suggests that such analysis may be omitted for certain routine samples. This was a retrospective analysis of the value of routine histopathological examination performed in daily general surgical practice.

Methods: All specimens from routine appendicectomies, cholecystectomies, haemorrhoidectomies and inguinal hernia repairs performed between 1993 and 2002 were included. The analysis included a comparison of histological and macroscopic diagnoses, review of preoperative and peroperative findings, and an evaluation of the consequences of routine histopathological assessment on patient management and costs.

Results: With the exception of hernia specimens, the rate of submission for routine pathological evaluation was 100 per cent. No hernia sac specimen from more than 2000 interventions revealed aberrant histological findings. Of 311 haemorrhoidectomy specimens three showed malignancy, all of which had a suspicious macroscopic appearance. Of 1465 appendices, only one (0.1 per cent) had a potentially relevant histological diagnosis that was not suspected macroscopically. Among 1523 cholecystectomy specimens, all adenomas (0.6 per cent) and carcinomas (0.4 per cent) were suspected macroscopically or developed in association with a known disease.

Conclusion: The rarity of incidental histological findings relevant to patient management, especially in the absence of macroscopic abnormalities, suggests that routine histological examination of certain specimens may be omitted. A more elementary role for macroscopic examination of the specimen by the surgeon and the pathologist is proposed.