The Role of Routine Pathologic Assessment After Pediatric Osteochondroma Excision.

Background: Osteochondromas are benign osseous lesions often excised for pain, growth abnormalities, and aesthetic concerns. While characteristic clinical and radiographic features leave little diagnostic ambiguity in most cases of osteochondroma, pathologic analysis to confirm the diagnosis and screen for malignancy is routinely performed following surgical excision. The purpose of this study was to determine the clinical and economic value of routine pathologic analysis after osteochondroma excision in a pediatric population.

Methods: A retrospective review of clinical records from 2 pediatric orthopaedic hospitals (St. Louis Children's Hospital and Shriner's Hospital for Children, St. Louis) identified 426 osteochondroma lesions surgically resected from 201 patients. Patients with solitary and multiple lesions were included. Clinical, radiographic, and surgical data were recorded for each resection surgery. Pathologic reports were evaluated. Costs incurred for routine pathologic assessment was also noted.

Results: Totally, 132 patients were treated with surgical resection of a solitary osteochondroma lesion, while an additional 291 lesions were resected from 69 patients with multiple lesions. Average age at the time of surgical resection was 13.0 years (2.1 to 17.9). The most common anatomic locations of excised lesions included the distal femur (110, 25.8%), proximal tibia/fibula (95, 22.3%), and distal radius/ulna (58, 13.6%). All resected specimens were sent for pathologic analysis. The average size of the resected lesions was 19.9 mm 3 (0.02 to 385.0 mm 3 ). In all cases, the histologic diagnosis confirmed benign osteochondroma. The total charges of pathologic analysis including processing and interpretation fees was ∼$755.00 for each lesion assessed, for a total cohort charge of $321,630.

Conclusion: We propose that in most cases of pediatric osteochondroma excision procedures, postoperative histologic analysis is not strictly indicated as it rarely, if ever, alters diagnosis or management. We suggest using a "gross only" analysis in these cases. However, we do believe that with preoperative diagnostic ambiguity, or if patients present with concerning features such as rapidly expansile lesions or cortical destruction, have axial skeleton or pelvic involvement, or enlarged cartilaginous caps, full histologic evaluation of the excised lesions will continue to be prudent.

Level of evidence: Level IV-case series.