Israel Medical Association Journal

Hypereosinophilia is defined as the absolute eosinophilic count of above 1500 cells/µL in the peripheral blood on two separate tests taken during one month and/or the pathological confirmation of hypereosinophilia. There are many conditions that are associated with increased eosinophil counts including: parasitic infections, drug reactions, eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis, allergic reactions, drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS), primary immunodeficiencies (PID), eosinophilic gastrointestinal diseases (EGID), familial hypereosinophilia, and neoplasms [1]. Molecular classification may be an adjuvant in the classification of hypereosinophilia [2]. Our patient presented with hypereosinophilia as part of a paraneoplastic syndrome.

Background: Routine histopathological analysis of bone extracted during total joint replacement is controversial.

Objectives: To evaluate the utility of routine histopathological analysis in total joint replacement.

Methods: We calculated the risk for discrepant diagnosis between the pre- and postoperative histopathological results by performing a meta-analysis of 11 studies (including our data). We also calculated the risk for significant discrepancies.

Results: The discrepant diagnoses analysis showed a random effect of 3% discrepancies (95% confidence interval 1.2–3.7%). Funnel plot indicates a publication bias; consequently, the conclusions from this analysis should be interpreted with caution. Regarding the significant discrepancy in diagnosis, we performed a meta-analysis of nine studies. Fixed-effects analysis of all the studies resulted in 0.16% significant discrepancies (95% CI[1] 0.02–0.30%) with no heterogeneity (Q = 3.93, degrees of freedom = 9, P = 0.14, I² = 49.2%), and appropriate fixed-effects models.

Conclusions: We recommend no further routine histological examination, reserving this tool for cases with a controversial primary diagnosis and unexpected findings during the operation.