Surgical versus pathological excision margins—an excision too far?

Surgical versus pathological excision margins—an excision too far? A common observation by clinicians who surgically excise skin pathology is the discrepancy between the measured size of the surgical specimen and that of the measurements reported by the examining pathologist. This discrepancy can often be the difference between whether, in the case of skin malignancies, the patient requires further wider excision, follow-up and, in cases where relevant, discharge. Could it therefore mean that patients are needlessly undergoing further excisions that could be avoided with more careful attention to specimen measurements and specimen ‘shrinkage,’ both surgically and pathologically? We measured the length and width of skin lesions excised pre- and post-operatively and compared these measurements with the reported histopathological measurements. A significant difference in length ( p = 0.000) and width ( p = 0.001) exists between pre- and post-operative measurements. No significant difference exists between post-operative and pathological measurements of length ( p = 0.072) or width ( p = 0.157). Length of time preserved in 10% formalin did not make a significant difference to specimen size ( p = 0.47). The aim of clinicians is to excise fully all skin pathology relevant for excision, ensuring sufficient clear margins to prevent potential recurrence whilst trying to sacrifice as little ‘normal’ tissue as possible in the process. What this study helps to highlight is the fact that clinicians cannot take for granted the reported measurements on the histopathology reports, upon which subsequent clinical management on reported excision margins are often based, without taking into consideration documented excision margins and subsequent allowance for significant specimen shrinkage, often resulting, for malignancies, in further wider excisions that are potentially disfiguring, and in the authors opinion, in more cases than currently thought, unnecessary. If one also factors in the fact that malignant cells shrink less than both benign tumours and, most importantly, normal skin, then subsequent reported pathological margins may be increasingly inaccurate as the excision margins may indeed be greater. European Journal of Plastic Surgery Springer Journals

Surgical versus pathological excision margins—an excision too far?

Loading next page...
Copyright © 2010 by Springer-Verlag
Medicine & Public Health; Plastic Surgery
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site


You’re reading a free preview. Subscribe to read the entire article.

DeepDyve is your
personal research library

It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.

Enjoy affordable access to
over 12 million articles from more than
10,000 peer-reviewed journals.

All for just $49/month

Explore the DeepDyve Library

Unlimited reading

Read as many articles as you need. Full articles with original layout, charts and figures. Read online, from anywhere.

Stay up to date

Keep up with your field with Personalized Recommendations and Follow Journals to get automatic updates.

Organize your research

It’s easy to organize your research with our built-in tools.

Your journals are on DeepDyve

Read from thousands of the leading scholarly journals from SpringerNature, Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford University Press and more.

All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.

See the journals in your area

Monthly Plan

  • Read unlimited articles
  • Personalized recommendations
  • No expiration
  • Print 20 pages per month
  • 20% off on PDF purchases
  • Organize your research
  • Get updates on your journals and topic searches


Start Free Trial

14-day Free Trial

Best Deal — 39% off

Annual Plan

  • All the features of the Professional Plan, but for 39% off!
  • Billed annually
  • No expiration
  • For the normal price of 10 articles elsewhere, you get one full year of unlimited access to articles.



billed annually
Start Free Trial

14-day Free Trial