Is systematic histological examination of the cholecystectomy specimen always necessary?

IF 4.6 Q2 MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS ACS Applied Bio Materials Pub Date : 2024-02-01 DOI:10.1016/j.jviscsurg.2023.11.011
Karem Slim , Flora Badon , Camille Darcha , Jean-Marc Regimbeau
{"title":"Is systematic histological examination of the cholecystectomy specimen always necessary?","authors":"Karem Slim ,&nbsp;Flora Badon ,&nbsp;Camille Darcha ,&nbsp;Jean-Marc Regimbeau","doi":"10.1016/j.jviscsurg.2023.11.011","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><p>The histological examination (HE) of all cholecystectomy specimens removed for cholelithiasis is a widespread practice to rule out unrecognized gallbladder cancer. (GBC). But this dogmatic practice has been called into question by recent published data. The aim of this literature review was to answer two questions: (1) can HE be omitted in specific cases; (2) under what conditions is a selective strategy indicated?</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>A review of the literature was carried out that included selected multicenter studies, registry studies, or meta-analyses. A reliable technique for the surgeon's macroscopic examination of the specimen would allow the selection of dubious cases for HE. The cost-effectiveness of selective HE was discussed. The PICO methodology (population, intervention, comparator, outcome) was used in the selection of articles that compared routine and selective histological examination.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>If cases from countries with a high prevalence of gallbladder cancer are excluded and in the absence of high-risk situations (advanced age, female gender, calcified or porcelain gallbladder, acute cholecystitis, polyps, abnormalities noted intra-operatively), the macroscopic examination of the gallbladder in the operating room has a reliability approaching 100% in the majority of published studies. This would make it possible to omit systematic HE without compromising the diagnosis and prognosis of patients with unsuspected GBC and with a very favorable cost-effectiveness ratio.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>Through a selection of patients at very low risk of incidentally-discovered cancer and a routine macroscopic examination of the opened gallbladder, the strategy of selective HE could prove useful in both clinical and economic terms.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":2,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1878788623001996","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction

The histological examination (HE) of all cholecystectomy specimens removed for cholelithiasis is a widespread practice to rule out unrecognized gallbladder cancer. (GBC). But this dogmatic practice has been called into question by recent published data. The aim of this literature review was to answer two questions: (1) can HE be omitted in specific cases; (2) under what conditions is a selective strategy indicated?

Methods

A review of the literature was carried out that included selected multicenter studies, registry studies, or meta-analyses. A reliable technique for the surgeon's macroscopic examination of the specimen would allow the selection of dubious cases for HE. The cost-effectiveness of selective HE was discussed. The PICO methodology (population, intervention, comparator, outcome) was used in the selection of articles that compared routine and selective histological examination.

Results

If cases from countries with a high prevalence of gallbladder cancer are excluded and in the absence of high-risk situations (advanced age, female gender, calcified or porcelain gallbladder, acute cholecystitis, polyps, abnormalities noted intra-operatively), the macroscopic examination of the gallbladder in the operating room has a reliability approaching 100% in the majority of published studies. This would make it possible to omit systematic HE without compromising the diagnosis and prognosis of patients with unsuspected GBC and with a very favorable cost-effectiveness ratio.

Conclusion

Through a selection of patients at very low risk of incidentally-discovered cancer and a routine macroscopic examination of the opened gallbladder, the strategy of selective HE could prove useful in both clinical and economic terms.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
是否一定需要对胆囊切除术标本进行系统的组织学检查?
导言对所有因胆石症而切除的胆囊切除术标本进行组织学检查(HE)是一种普遍的做法,以排除未被发现的胆囊癌。(GBC)。但最近发表的数据对这种教条式的做法提出了质疑。本文献综述旨在回答两个问题:(1) 在特定病例中是否可以省略 HE;(2) 在什么情况下需要采取选择性策略。外科医生对标本进行宏观检查的可靠技术将有助于选择可疑病例进行 HE。讨论了选择性 HE 的成本效益。结果如果排除来自胆囊癌高发国家的病例,并且不存在高风险情况(高龄、女性、胆囊钙化或瓷化、急性胆囊炎、息肉、术中发现异常),那么在大多数已发表的研究中,手术室胆囊宏观检查的可靠性接近 100%。结论通过选择偶然发现癌症风险极低的患者并对打开的胆囊进行常规宏观检查,选择性胆囊切除术的策略在临床和经济方面都能证明是有用的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
ACS Applied Bio Materials
ACS Applied Bio Materials Chemistry-Chemistry (all)
CiteScore
9.40
自引率
2.10%
发文量
464
期刊最新文献
A Systematic Review of Sleep Disturbance in Idiopathic Intracranial Hypertension. Advancing Patient Education in Idiopathic Intracranial Hypertension: The Promise of Large Language Models. Anti-Myelin-Associated Glycoprotein Neuropathy: Recent Developments. Approach to Managing the Initial Presentation of Multiple Sclerosis: A Worldwide Practice Survey. Association Between LACE+ Index Risk Category and 90-Day Mortality After Stroke.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1