Abstract
BACKGROUND: Routine submission of pathologic specimens for histologic analysis following orthopedic surgery is a common and often required practice in the United States. Prior orthopedic studies have determined that these histologic examinations are of limited cost effectiveness and low clinical value because rarely do the pathology findings alter patient management. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the cost effectiveness and clinical significance of routine histologic examination of tissue specimens removed during ankle arthroscopy. METHODS: Between 2014 and 2018, 408 patients underwent ankle arthroscopy at a multi-center hospital system by 16 different orthopedic surgeons. The available pathology reports from these cases were retrospectively reviewed to determine if the routine histologic examination altered patient care. We compared the preoperative diagnosis to both the postoperative and histologic diagnoses. The total cost for these histologic examinations was estimated using 2017 Medicare physician fees released by the College of American Pathologists. Cost-effectiveness was estimated in 2017 US dollars by cost per discrepant and discordant diagnosis. RESULTS: Of the 408 patients who underwent ankle arthroscopy, 361 pathology reports were available for review. The prevalence of concordant diagnosis was 98.9% (357/361); the prevalence of discrepant diagnoses was 1.0% (4/361). There were no cases identified with a discordant diagnosis. Total estimated cost for all pathology specimens was $46 381 in 2017 US dollars. Cost per discrepant diagnosis was $11 595. CONCLUSION: In our study, histologic examination of surgical specimens following ankle arthroscopy had no effect on patient management, yet it increased costs. Routine examination of these pathologic specimens had a low rate of discrepant and/or discordant diagnoses. Based on our results, routine pathologic examination of ankle arthroscopy tissue specimens should be sent solely at the discretion of the orthopedic surgeon as opposed to being a mandated policy. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, case series.