JBJS welcomes reader comments on published articles. Letters to the Editor are reviewed by JBJS editors but are not peer-reviewed. To submit your letter, please follow the "submit a response" link that appears in the content box at the upper right of the full text of the article.

Letters to the Editor to:

Scientific Articles:
Richard E. McClain, Carisa D. Hotari, Christopher L. Scribner, and David A. Detrisac
The Clinical Value of Histologic Examination in Shoulder Arthroscopy
J Bone Joint Surg Am 2008; 90: 281-283 [Abstract] [Full text] [PDF]
*Letters to the Editor: Submit a response to this article

Electronic letters published:

[Read Letter to the Editor] Dr Detrisac et al. respond to Dr. Richards
David A. Detrisac, M.D., Richard E. McClain, DO, Carisa D. Hotari, BS, Christopher L. Scribner, BA   (23 July 2008)
[Read Letter to the Editor] Another field of view
James E. Richard, DO, Neil c. Caliman, MD, Mehboob Fatteh, MD, John Paul Jones, MD, Wilhelm T. Lawrence, MD, Brian W. Olsen, MD   (23 July 2008)

Dr Detrisac et al. respond to Dr. Richards 23 July 2008
Previous Letter to the Editor Top
David A. Detrisac, M.D. ,
Richard E. McClain, DO, Carisa D. Hotari, BS, Christopher L. Scribner, BA

Send letter to journal:
Re: Dr Detrisac et al. respond to Dr. Richards

detrisacsd{at}comcast.net David A. Detrisac, M.D., et al.

We appreciate the interest of our pathologist colleagues in our article(1). Their 9 cases have been reviewed. One patient, with a known history of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, had an arthroscopic acromioplasty and open resection of the distal clavicle. Histologic examination of the distal clavicle revealed findings diagnostic of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. None of the other cases involved arthroscopic surgery.

In reviewing the other 8 non-arthroscopic cases,five(including 2 pathologic fractures) had known malignancy prior to surgery and histology revealed no new diagnoses. Two new diagnoses of lymphoma and one of atypical lymphoid aggregates, a possible pre-malignant lesion, were found. These 3 patients are being followed by each patient’s oncologist. No treatment based on the histology diagnoses has yet been initiated in these 3 patients.

The source of the payment information is based on Medicare payments in 2005 dollars.

We stand by our conclusion that histologic examination following our arthroscopic shoulder surgery cases did not influence patient care or provide any new diagnoses. We believe that any unusual arthroscopic findings during surgery should warrant submission for histology and that, in these cases, histology in concordance with the arthroscopic findings will provide the best patient care. We also believe that the surgeon should be the one to judge when histologic examination of arthroscopic surgery specimens is indicated.

References:

1.Richard E. McClain, Carisa D. Hotari, Christopher L. Scribner, and David A. Detrisac The Clinical Value of Histologic Examination in Shoulder Arthroscopy J Bone Joint Surg Am 2008; 90: 281-283
Another field of view 23 July 2008
Next Letter to the Editor Top
James E. Richard, DO,
Physician/Pathologist
Capital Area Pathologist, P.C., Lansing, MI,
Neil c. Caliman, MD, Mehboob Fatteh, MD, John Paul Jones, MD, Wilhelm T. Lawrence, MD, Brian W. Olsen, MD

Send letter to journal:
Re: Another field of view

james.richard{at}irmc.org James E. Richard, DO, et al.

To The Editor:

The findings in the article, "The Clinical Value of Histologic Examination in Shoulder Arthroscopy"(1) are discordant with our experience. We are the pathology department that interprets the histologic material from two of the three institutions listed in the article. In the past twelve months, there have been nine cases of malignancy or probable malignancy from orthopedic specimens that gave no indication of disease on the tissue request slip or in the history charts of our institutions, including two shoulder cases from one of the authors of this article. These specimens came from patients between the ages of 61 and 88 and included arthroplasty specimens as well as arthroscopic shavings. Tissue sites included hips, knees, shoulder, and lumbar spine. The diagnoses in these cases included metastatic carcinoma, lymphoma, probable lymphoma, and one case of systemic mastocytosis. The total number of surgical pathology specimens from all surgical procedures in our community hospital averages 16,000 per year.

We were not involved in the result comparison of the histologic findings with the clinical or intraoperative diagnosis. We can state, however, that the information regarding payment is somewhat misleading given the insurance mix in our area of Michigan. Our average reimbursement is well below that listed in the article's calculations.

The controversy regarding the submission of specimens to pathology should be based upon patient care. When good patient care is reduced to a monetary standard, then patient care and patient safety may become secondary. The diagnoses rendered in the above mentioned cases required microscopic examination of these tissues. Even experienced surgeons have been surprised by unexpected findings in the most innocuous tissue samples that have altered the course of the patient's care.

The authors did not receive any outside funding or grants in support of their research for or preparation of this work. Neither they nor a member of their immediate families received payments or other benefits or a commitment or agreement to provide such benefits from a commercial entity. No commercial entity paid or directed, or agreed to pay or direct, any benefits to any research fund, foundation, division, center, clinical practice, or other charitable or nonprofit organization with which the authors, or a member of their immediate families, are affiliated or associated.

References:

1. McClain RE, Hotari CD, Scribner CL, Detrisac DA. The Clinical Value of Histologic Examination in Shoulder Arthroscopy. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2008;90:281-3.