title: A different perspective on macroscopic sampling of cholecystectomy specimens.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Because there may be interdepartmental differences in macroscopic sampling of cholecystectomy specimens, we aimed to investigate differences between the longitudinal sampling technique and our classical sampling technique in cholecystectomy specimens in which there was no obvious malignancy.
  
  
  METHODS
  Six hundred eight cholecystectomy specimens that were collected between 2011 and 2012 were included in this study. The first group included 273 specimens for which one sample was taken from each of the fundus, body, and neck regions (our classical technique). The second group included 335 specimens for which samples taken from the neck region and lengthwise from the fundus toward the neck were placed together in one cassette (longitudinal sampling). The Pearson chi-square, Fisher exact, and ANOVA tests were used and differences were considered significant at p<.05.
  
  
  RESULTS
  In the statistical analysis, although gallbladders in the first group were bigger, the average length of the samples taken in the second group was greater. Inflammatory cells, pyloric metaplasia, intestinal metaplasia, low grade dysplasia, and invasive carcinoma were seen more often in the second group.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  In our study, the use of a longitudinal sampling technique enabled us to examine a longer mucosa and to detect more mucosal lesions than did our classical technique. Thus, longitudinal sampling can be an effective technique in detecting preinvasive lesions.
authors.affiliation: Department of Pathology, Izmir Bozyaka Training and Research Hospital, Izmir, Turkey.
authors.forename: Asuman
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Argon
authors.affiliation: Department of Pathology, Izmir Bozyaka Training and Research Hospital, Izmir, Turkey.
authors.forename: Ayşe
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Yağcı
authors.affiliation: Department of Pathology, Izmir Bozyaka Training and Research Hospital, Izmir, Turkey.
authors.forename: Funda
authors.initials: F
authors.lastname: Taşlı
authors.affiliation: Department of Pathology, Izmir Bozyaka Training and Research Hospital, Izmir, Turkey.
authors.forename: Tulu
authors.initials: T
authors.lastname: Kebat
authors.affiliation: Department of Pathology, Izmir Bozyaka Training and Research Hospital, Izmir, Turkey.
authors.forename: Senem
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Deniz
authors.affiliation: Department of General Surgery, Izmir Bozyaka Training and Research Hospital, Izmir, Turkey.
authors.forename: Nazif
authors.initials: N
authors.lastname: Erkan
authors.affiliation: Department of Biostatistics and Medical Communication, Ege University Faculty of Medicine, Izmir, Turkey.
authors.forename: Gül
authors.initials: G
authors.lastname: Kitapçıoğlu
authors.affiliation: Department of Pathology, Izmir Bozyaka Training and Research Hospital, Izmir, Turkey.
authors.forename: Enver
authors.initials: E
authors.lastname: Vardar
keywords: Cholecystectomy; Incidental gallbladder cancer; Longitudinal sampling technique; Preinvasive lesions; Swiss-roll method