{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.029352226720647773, 'fraction_numerical': 0.004048582995951417, 'mean_word_length': 5.773972602739726, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
[Routine histopathological evaluation after appendectomy not necessary].

The article seeks to supply evidence-based data on the usefulness of routine histopathological evaluation of appendectomy specimens taken for non-oncological purposes. Reasons to perform histology are: (1) old-fashioned attitude that everything worth excising is worthy of histological scrutiny, difficult to maintain in days of cost constraint and ever-improving other techniques to assess such questions; (2) quality assurance of surgical indications; (3) patient safety/security reasons, and (4) lack of other techniques to address diagnostical questions. The authors present a rational evaluation of the pros and cons of histological evaluation, arguing that cost reduction, workload reduction for pathologists and prevention of ineffective follow-up measures will outweigh eventual negative effects. As a pathologist I find the authors present a compelling case. We should try to avoid doing unnecessary work.