Histopathological evaluation is still useful after bladder neck resection

C. Persu
{"title":"Histopathological evaluation is still useful after bladder neck resection","authors":"C. Persu","doi":"10.5173/ceju.2016.942","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The idea behind this paper [1] is novel and daring. Firstly, there are no previous papers looking into the actual necessity of pathological examination after removing a part of the urinary tract. And secondly, there are many possible implications after changing something that is widely considered as elementary and routine. The conclusion that might be drawn from this paper is that if you are only looking for cancer, this might not be the best approach. But, since this type of surgery is done to relieve bladder outlet obstruction, you will most likely get a good clinical result regardless of the nature of the resected tissue. This would make a good argument for modern procedures like laser or plasma vaporization, when a biopsy would increase the total cost not only because of the pathological examination but also because of the extra time and the extra loop which is needed. But even in this field there are many voices saying that a preoperative biopsy might save a lot of trouble in the long run and, by that, be more than recommended. This will probably remain a hot topic for a while, with many good arguments from both sides [2]. The macroscopic aspect of the tissue in the area of interest might also provide a clue as to whether there is something suspect or just plain fibrosis. But the subjective opinion of the urologist might not be enough in the case of his decision being challenged at a later time and no hard evidence is available [3]. The most important argument of the authors for not doing a biopsy is the cost of the pathological examination. In their study, they had only two patients confirmed with prostate cancer out of a total of 340 patients. More than this, those two patients were known to have prostate cancer before the resection. For the rest of the group, the pathological examination diagnosed BPH or inflammation of the prostate or the bladder. The authors consider that the cost of diagnosing two cases of cancer is equivaHistopathological evaluation is still useful after bladder neck resection","PeriodicalId":86295,"journal":{"name":"Urologia polska","volume":"69 1","pages":"358 - 359"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-11-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Urologia polska","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5173/ceju.2016.942","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The idea behind this paper [1] is novel and daring. Firstly, there are no previous papers looking into the actual necessity of pathological examination after removing a part of the urinary tract. And secondly, there are many possible implications after changing something that is widely considered as elementary and routine. The conclusion that might be drawn from this paper is that if you are only looking for cancer, this might not be the best approach. But, since this type of surgery is done to relieve bladder outlet obstruction, you will most likely get a good clinical result regardless of the nature of the resected tissue. This would make a good argument for modern procedures like laser or plasma vaporization, when a biopsy would increase the total cost not only because of the pathological examination but also because of the extra time and the extra loop which is needed. But even in this field there are many voices saying that a preoperative biopsy might save a lot of trouble in the long run and, by that, be more than recommended. This will probably remain a hot topic for a while, with many good arguments from both sides [2]. The macroscopic aspect of the tissue in the area of interest might also provide a clue as to whether there is something suspect or just plain fibrosis. But the subjective opinion of the urologist might not be enough in the case of his decision being challenged at a later time and no hard evidence is available [3]. The most important argument of the authors for not doing a biopsy is the cost of the pathological examination. In their study, they had only two patients confirmed with prostate cancer out of a total of 340 patients. More than this, those two patients were known to have prostate cancer before the resection. For the rest of the group, the pathological examination diagnosed BPH or inflammation of the prostate or the bladder. The authors consider that the cost of diagnosing two cases of cancer is equivaHistopathological evaluation is still useful after bladder neck resection
膀胱颈切除术后的组织病理学评估仍然有用
这篇论文背后的想法是新颖而大胆的。首先,没有文献探讨切除部分尿路后病理检查的实际必要性。其次,在改变一些被广泛认为是基本和常规的东西之后,会有许多可能的影响。从这篇论文中可能得出的结论是,如果你只是在寻找癌症,这可能不是最好的方法。但是,由于这种类型的手术是为了缓解膀胱出口阻塞,无论切除组织的性质如何,您都很可能获得良好的临床结果。这将为激光或等离子汽化等现代手术提供一个很好的论据,因为活检不仅会增加病理检查的总成本,还会增加额外的时间和所需的额外循环。但即使在这个领域,也有很多声音说术前活检从长远来看可能会节省很多麻烦,因此,这是不推荐的。这可能在一段时间内仍然是一个热门话题,双方都有很多很好的论点。在感兴趣的区域,组织的宏观方面也可能提供线索,是否有可疑的东西或只是单纯的纤维化。但是,如果泌尿科医生的决定在以后受到质疑,而且没有确凿的证据,那么他的主观意见可能是不够的。不做活检的作者最重要的论点是病理检查的成本。在他们的研究中,340名患者中只有两名患者被确诊患有前列腺癌。更重要的是,这两名患者在切除前就已经患有前列腺癌。其余的人,病理检查诊断为前列腺增生或前列腺或膀胱炎症。作者认为两例肿瘤的诊断成本相等,膀胱颈切除术后的组织病理学评估仍然有用
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信