Standardized terminology for aesthetic ophthalmic plastic surgery

The nomenclature of groin dissection for melanoma - Time to simplify

INTRODUCTION

A wide variety of terms are used to describe different extents of groin dissection for stage 3 melanoma which may result in confusion and reduce effectiveness of research. We aim to evaluate the published terminology.

METHODS

A PubMed review was conducted using the terms 'melanoma' plus 'inguinal'; 'groin'; 'pelvic'; 'ilioinguinal' dissection. 63 papers were included from 1956 to March 2015. A review of anatomy and coding was also conducted.

RESULTS

Inguinal dissection was described using 8 terms from 56 papers with 7 papers using multiple terms for the same procedure. 'Superficial dissection' was the most common term despite inguinal-nodal tissue being separated into superficial and deep layers anatomically. ICD10PCS and OPSC code for 'inguinal' with no anatomical definition, CPT codes for 'inguinofemoral/superficial'. Combination inguino-pelvic dissection was described using 11 terms from 51 papers with 15 papers using multiple terms for the same procedure. 'Ilioinguinal' and 'Deep' were the most common despite most pelvic dissections including obturator nodes. ICD10PCS and OPSC code for 'pelvic' with no anatomical definition and CPT codes for 'superficial plus pelvic'.

CONCLUSION

Many different terms are used to describe the same procedures, often within the same article. The lack of clarity can confuse readers, hinder comparative research and jeopardise patient care. Imprecise documentation of anatomical definition limits surgical outcome reporting and can impede planning for revision surgery. Standardisation is necessary and groin dissection should be defined by anatomical boundaries e.g. 'superficial' and 'deep' inguinal; 'pelvic'; 'inguino-pelvic' with clear documentation of extent.

Literature review of SNOMED CT use

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this paper is to report on the use of the systematised nomenclature of medicine clinical terms (SNOMED CT) by providing an overview of published papers.

METHODS

Published papers on SNOMED CT between 2001 and 2012 were identified using PubMed and Embase databases using the keywords 'systematised nomenclature of medicine' and 'SNOMED CT'. For each paper the following characteristics were retrieved: SNOMED CT focus category (ie, indeterminate, theoretical, pre-development/design, implementation and evaluation/commodity), usage category (eg, prospective content coverage, used to classify or code in a study), medical domain and country.

RESULTS

Our search strategy identified 488 papers. A comparison between the papers published between 2001-6 and 2007-12 showed an increase in every SNOMED CT focus category. The number of papers classified as 'theoretical' increased from 46 to 78, 'pre-development/design' increased from 61 to 173 and 'implementation' increased from 10 to 34. Papers classified as 'evaluation/commodity' only started to appear from 2010.

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of studies focused on 'theoretical' and 'pre-development/design'. This is still encouraging as SNOMED CT is being harmonized with other standardized terminologies and is being evaluated to determine the content coverage of local terms, which is usually one of the first steps towards adoption. Most implementations are not published in the scientific literature, requiring a look beyond the scientific literature to gain insights into SNOMED CT implementations.