Register for email alerts and news feeds:
This journal | BMJ Group
rss
Journal of Clinical Pathology 2002;55:67-68
Copyright © 2002 by the BMJ Publishing Group Ltd & Association of Clinical Pathologists.
Journal of Clinical Pathology 2002;55:67-68
© 2002 Journal of Clinical Pathology

SHORT REPORT

Is microscopic assessment of macroscopically normal hysterectomy specimens necessary?

H A Salmon, J H F Smith, M Balsitis

Department of Histopathology, Northern General Hospital NHS Trust, Sheffield S5 7AU, UK

Correspondence to:
Correspondence to:
Dr J H F Smith, Department of Histopathology, Northern General Hospital NHS Trust, Sheffield S5 7AU, UK;
John.Smith{at}northngh-tr.trent.nhs.uk

ABSTRACT

Aim: To determine whether microscopic examination of macroscopically normal hysterectomy specimens yields findings that could alter subsequent clinical management.

Methods: All pathology reports on hysterectomy specimens submitted to the department of histopathology at the Northern General Hospital from January 1997 to December 1998 were reviewed. Cases were included for further assessment if the hysterectomy specimen was regarded as macroscopically normal by a consultant pathologist and if the patient had no history of, or suspicion of, neoplastic disease. The subsequent microscopic findings from these cases were assessed to determine whether any lesions of clinical importance were identified.

Results: Eight hundred and fifty four specimens were reviewed, of which 139 were suitable for inclusion. Only one of the 139 cases harboured a microscopic abnormality that necessitated specific clinical follow up; this was a focus of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 2 (CIN 2). On follow up of that patient, no further neoplastic disease was identified.

Conclusion: Microscopic assessment of macroscopically normal hysterectomy specimens does not contribute to patient management and is unnecessary in an era of manpower shortage and cost containment.

Keywords: hysterectomy; workload

Abbreviations: CIN, cervical intraepithelial neoplasia


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

  • Heatley, M K (2008). Dissection and reporting of the organs of the female genital tract. J. Clin. Pathol. 61: 241-257 [Full Text]  
  • Andrews, T, Monaghan, H (2008). Is microscopic examination of hysterectomy specimens removed for clinically benign disease necessary?. J. Clin. Pathol. 61: 235-236 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
  • Duthie, F R, Nairn, E R, Milne, A W, McTaggart, V, Topping, D (2004). The impact of involvement of biomedical scientists in specimen dissection and selection of blocks for histopathology: a study of time benefits and specimen handling quality in Ayrshire and Arran area laboratory. J. Clin. Pathol. 57: 27-32 [Abstract] [Full Text]  

This Article

Services
Citing Articles
Google Scholar
PubMed
Topic Collections
Bookmark with

Register for free content

The full back archive is now available for all BMJ Journals. Institutional subscribers may access the entire archive as part of their subscription. Personal subscribers will also have access to all content when logged in. Non-subscribers who register have free access to all articles published before 2006 right back to volume 1 issue 1. Register here to access the free archive of all BMJ Journals.

Don't forget to sign up for content alerts so you keep up to date with all the articles as they are published.

Pathology jobs

Pathology jobs