4.4 Article

An audit of pathology lymph node dissection techniques in pylorus preserving Kausch-Whipple pancreatoduodenectomy specimens

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PATHOLOGY
卷 54, 期 10, 页码 758-761

出版社

BRITISH MED JOURNAL PUBL GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/jcp.54.10.758

关键词

audit; lymph node; pancreas

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aims-To determine whether or not identifying recognised anatomical groupings of lymph nodes (LNs) improves LN yield in pancreatoduodenectomy resection specimens. Methods-All the pathology reports from pancreatoduodenectomy resection specimens between January 1997 and September 1999, for one specialist pathologist at the Royal Liverpool University Hospital, were examined retrospectively. The total number of LNs found in each specimen was determined and the method of identifying LNs established for each case. LNs were found using either (1) the UICC TNM anatomical groupings, termed grouped; (2) the Japanese Pancreatic Society classification, termed numbered; or (3) neither the grouped nor numbered classification, termed non-grouped. Results-A total of 50 reports (45 neoplastic, five chronic pancreatitis) were studied, 11 with non-grouped LNs, 14 with grouped LNs, and 25 with numbered LNs, including the five inflammatory cases. A median of 7.0 LNs was found in non-grouped cases, a significantly lower number than in the grouped cases (median, 12.0; Mann-Whitney U, p < 0.039) and numbered cases (median, 17.0; p < 0.0001). There was no significant difference in the LN yield between grouped and numbered cases (p = 0.1066). LNs were found most frequently in the inferior, posterior pancreaticoduodenal, and infrapyloric regions. Conclusions-A detailed knowledge of the anatomical distribution of LNs in pancreatoduodenectomy resection specimens significantly improves LN yield. It is suggested that illustrations of LN sites in resection specimens should be included in pathology guidelines/proformas to improve LN detection and, therefore, pathological prognostic data.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据