Histologic analysis of the hernia sac: current practices based on a survey of IPEG members

A Canadian national survey: Perspectives on routine pathological examination of hernia sacs after inguinal hernia and hydrocele repair among pediatric urologists, surgeons, and pathologists

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE

This study aims to understand perspectives on routine pathological examination of hernia sacs following pediatric inguinal hernia and hydrocele repair among Canadian pediatric urologists, surgeons, and pathologists.

STUDY DESIGN

All active members of Pediatric Urologists of Canada (PUC), Canadian Association of Pediatric Surgeons (CAPS), and the divisional heads of anatomical pathology at the Canadian children's hospitals (AP) were invited to participate between June 2019 and January 2021 in an anonymous multiple-choice-based questionnaire.

RESULTS

The response rates were 71% from PUC (24/34), 20% from CAPS (25/130), and 64% from AP (7/11). The majority of the surgeons (PUC:54%, CAPS:68%) did not routinely send hernia sacs for pathological examination after inguinal hernia repair. Most felt there was a little value in such examination (PUC:96%, CAPS:72%). Among those who submit hernia sacs, the majority did not receive reports that were clinically significant impacting patient management (PUC:82%, CAPS:50%). On the other hand, the pathologists had mixed opinion on the value of examining hernia sacs. Most of them only did gross examination (86%), unless requested by surgeons or concerning features were noted on gross examination. The majority have found clinically meaningful abnormal findings (71%), including vas deferens and portions of the spermatic cord.

DISCUSSION

Currently, there are no evidence-based clinical guidelines on pathological assessment of hernia sacs after pediatric inguinal hernia and hydrocele repair. Instead of making it mandatory, future guidelines should highlight specimens that should be submitted for further investigations (e.g., challenging cases where inadvertent surgical injuries might have occurred). Future studies should also address whether patients who may be at higher risk of having clinically significant pathology can be identified pre- or perioperatively to more efficiently triage specimens that would benefit from pathological examination. Limitation of the study includes low response rate from the CAPS members during the COVID-19 pandemic.

CONCLUSIONS

While most of the pediatric urologists and surgeons felt there is a little value of pathological examination of hernia sacs following inguinal hernia and hydrocele repair, half of the anatomical pathologists felt there is value. Future studies should aim to establish evidence-based clinical guidelines taking stakeholders perspectives into consideration.

Incidental Diagnosis of Metastatic Prostate Cancer Post-Inguinal Hernia Repair

This report discusses the case of an 83-year-old male who was incidentally found to have a diagnosis of metastatic prostate cancer on pathology from elective inguinal hernia repair. The medical record, radiology, operative reports, and pathology of the patient were reviewed and a literature search was subsequently performed. A new cancer diagnosis is a very rare finding during routine hernia surgery. Moreover, the decision of whether to send a hernia sac for routine pathology is often dependent on individual surgeon practices and institutional guidelines. However, this case demonstrates the potential for an unexpected finding on routine pathology to significantly alter the clinical course of a patient's care as the patient subsequently underwent both medical and palliative surgical treatment for prostate cancer.

Clinical and Economic Value of Routine Pathological Examination of Hernia Sacs and Scheduled Clinic Follow-Ups After Inguinal Hernia and Hydrocele Repair in a Canadian Tertiary Care Children's Hospital

BACKGROUND

The clinical and economical value of routine submission of hernia sacs for pathological examination and scheduled clinic follow-ups after inguinal hernia and hydrocele repair has been questioned. Herein, we assessed the institutional variability in these routine practices.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed patients who underwent unilateral or bilateral inguinal hernia and/or hydrocele repair, open or laparoscopically, at our institution from 2015 to 2018.

RESULTS

1181 patients were included (1074 inguinal hernias and 157 hydroceles). Of 531 specimens obtained from 446 (38%) patients, 515 (97%) were normal. 16 (3%) abnormal pathological findings included 7 with mesothelial hyperplasia, 5 with nonfunctional genital ductal remnants, 3 with ectopic adrenal cortical tissues, and 1 epidydimal structure which was not recognized at the time of surgery. 418 (35%) patients had scheduled clinic follow-ups 65 (IQR 46-94) days postoperatively. 44 (4%) patients with unexpected postoperative Emergency Department visits within 30 days of surgery were identified. Only one patient required inpatient treatment, and the rest did not require intervention or admission. The total direct cost of analyzing specimens during the study period was $30,798 CAD ($10,266/year). The average cost to detect a potentially significant finding was $1924.88/specimen and $2053.20/patient.

CONCLUSIONS

Routine pathological examination of hernia sacs and scheduled clinic follow-ups were associated with significant costs and predominantly nonsignificant findings. They should therefore be reserved for patients with a high clinical suspicion of injuries/abnormalities or risk factors for potential complications.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

This is a level III evidence study.

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

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.