Necessity of routine pathological examination after surgical excision of wrist ganglions.

摘要

PURPOSE: The value of routine pathological evaluation of ganglion cysts is questionable considering that the pretest odds of a wrist lesion being a ganglion cyst are usually high based on physical examination and surgical findings alone. This study evaluates the necessity of routine pathological examination of specimens derived from surgical removal of wrist ganglion cysts. METHODS: We identified 429 consecutive adult patients who underwent surgical excision of a wrist ganglion with routine pathological examination of the specimen between 1997 and 2008. The rates of concordant, discrepant, and discordant diagnoses were reported with 95% confidence intervals. The odds of a discrepant or discordant diagnosis were calculated. RESULTS: The prevalence of a concordant diagnosis was 98.6% (424 of 429; 95% confidence interval, 97.3% to 99.6%). The prevalence of a discrepant diagnosis was 1.4% (5 of 429; 95% confidence interval, 0.38% to 2.7%), and the prevalence of a discordant diagnosis was zero. The odds ratio was 0.012 for a discrepant diagnosis and zero for a discordant diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that, in patients with the clinical diagnosis of wrist ganglion cyst, quality of care would not be compromised by abandoning the practice of routinely submitting surgical specimens for pathological examination after excision of the ganglion cyst. Discrepant diagnoses are encountered infrequently and discordant diagnoses did not occur. We recommend pathological examination only when the clear gelatinous fluid typical of a ganglion cyst is not encountered at surgery.