A Canadian national survey: Perspectives on routine pathological examination of hernia sacs after inguinal hernia and hydrocele repair among pediatric urologists, surgeons, and pathologists. Issue 3 (June 2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Lee, Min Joon; Kim, Jin K.; Fervaha, Gagan; Chua, Michael E.; Brindle, Mary E.; Terry, Jefferson; Koyle, Martin A.
• Is Part Of: Journal of pediatric urology. Volume 18:Issue 3(2022)
• Page Start: 335
• Page End: 339
• Publication Date: 2022-06
• Subjects: Hernia sac -- Hydrocele -- Inguinal hernia -- Pediatric -- Questionnaire -- Pathology; Pediatric urology -- Periodicals; Urologic Diseases -- Periodicals; Urogenital Diseases -- Periodicals; Urologic Surgical Procedures -- Periodicals; Child; Infant; Urologie pédiatrique -- Périodiques; Appareil urinaire -- Maladies -- Périodiques; Pédiatrie; Urologie; Pediatric urology; Périodique électronique (Descripteur de forme); Ressource Internet (Descripteur de forme); Electronic journals; Periodicals; Electronic journals; 618.926
• DOI: 10.1016/j.jpurol.2022.03.005
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1477-5131

Abstract

Summary: 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.