Related Experiment Video
Updated: Mar 19, 2026
Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy with Indocyanine Green Fluorescence: Choledochoscopic Stone Extraction and Primary Duct Suture
Published on: November 25, 2025
Histopathological examination of specimen following cholecystectomy: Are we accepting resect and discard?
Sean M Wrenn1, Peter W Callas2, Wasef Abu-Jaish2
1Department of Surgery, University of Vermont Medical Center, 111 Colchester Avenue, Smith 304, Burlington, VT, 05401, USA. Sean.Wrenn@uvmhealth.org.
Background:
Cholecystectomy is one of the most commonly performed general surgery procedures in the USA. It is most frequently performed for benign biliary disease such as biliary colic or cholecystitis; however, resected specimens are frequently sent for histopathological analysis due to the perceived risk of incidental gallbladder carcinoma (iGBC). The principle aim of this study is to review the pathology results from gallbladder specimens sent for routine pathology, determine the incidence of iGBC in our population, and determine whether surgeons need to send specimens for further analysis if no preoperative or intraoperative suspicion for malignancy is present.
Methods:
We performed a large single-center case-controlled retrospective study of all gallbladder specimens sent for routine histopathological analysis between 2009 and 2014. The results were tabulated, including both common and rare findings. We then analyzed patient outcomes and survival for the case group of iGBC patients and determined value in life years (LY) gained per dollar spent on pathological screening.
Results:
A total of 2153 pathology reports were reviewed. After exclusion criteria, a total of 1984 were included in data analysis. The incidence of iGBC was 0.25 % (95 % CI 0.08, 0.59), and dysplasia was 0.70 % (0.39, 1.20). The most common pathological findings included chronic cholecystitis in 89 % (87.4, 90.3) and cholelithiasis in 81 % (79.1, 82.6) of specimens. Total charges for pathological screening were $65,404 per LY to date; however, two patients have ongoing disease-free survival and this figure is expected to decrease.
Conclusions:
The incidence of significant pathology necessitating change in clinical management is extremely low in our population. Despite this, the cost per LY gained from routine pathological analysis appears to be of sufficient value to continue with current practice. Alternatively, selective screening based on risk factors, intraoperative findings, and on-table examination of specimen may be a more cost-effective approach.
