The Value of Pathological Examination of the Foreskin Following Circumcision. Issue 4 (July 2015)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Safir, Ilan J.; Patel, Amar P.; Moore, Brad P.; Patil, Dattatraya; Bellott‐McGrath, Gabriel; Osunkoya, Adeboye O.; Issa, Muta M.
• Is Part Of: Urology practice. Volume 2:Issue 4(2015)
• Publication Date: 2015-07
• Subjects: penis -- circumcision -- male -- foreskin -- pathology -- health care economics and organizations
• DOI: 10.1016/j.urpr.2014.11.003
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2352-0779

Abstract

Abstract : Introduction: : We determined the clinical impact and value of routine histopathological examination of the foreskin following circumcision. Methods: : We performed a retrospective study of 225 consecutive adult circumcisions. Indications for circumcision were categorized as benign or malignant based on preoperative clinical evaluation. Histopathological results were similarly classified as benign or malignant. Preoperative clinical impression and postoperative histological diagnosis were compared and reported as concordant (in agreement) or discordant (in disagreement). The cost impact of histopathology examination was analyzed with respect to study findings. Results: : Of the 225 patients 209 (92.9%) had clinically benign disease on preoperative evaluation and 16 (7.1%) had foreskin lesions suspicious for malignancy. Mean age was 57.0 years (range 23 to 92). Patients were younger in the benign group than in the malignant group (56.5 vs 62.8 years, p = 0.018). Black patients represented 65.8% of the study population and were similarly distributed between the 2 groups (p = 0.405). There was no statistical difference in patient height, weight, body mass index or comorbidities between the 2 groups. Preoperative clinical impression and postoperative histological diagnosis were concordant in all 209 patients in the benign group. Of the 16 patients suspected to have malignant disease preoperatively 9 (56.2%) had malignancy and 7 (43.8%) had benign disease on histopathological examination. Conclusions: : Routine histological examination of a foreskin specimen in the absence of clinical suspicion for malignancy appears to have diminished benefit in the setting of benign preoperative indications. Omitting this traditional practice in patients with benign surgical indications may positively impact health care costs without compromising quality of care.