A multicentre study of the precision and accuracy of the TruSlice and TruSlice Digital histological dissection devices

Background: Five key factors enabling a good surgical grossing technique include a flat uniformly perpendicular specimen cutting face, appropriate immobilisation of the tissue specimen during grossing, good visualisation of the cutting tissue face, sharp cutting knives and the grossing knife action....

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:British journal of biomedical science 2016-10, Vol.73 (4), p.163-167
Hauptverfasser: Orchard, G. E., Shams, M., Nwokie, T., Fernando, P., Bulut, C., Quaye, C. J., Gabriel, J., Ramji, Z., Georgaki, A., Watt, M., Cole, Z., Stewart, K., McTaggart, V., Padayachy, S., Long, A. M., Ogden, A., Andrews, C., Birchall, A., Shams, F., Neesam, H., Haine, N.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Background: Five key factors enabling a good surgical grossing technique include a flat uniformly perpendicular specimen cutting face, appropriate immobilisation of the tissue specimen during grossing, good visualisation of the cutting tissue face, sharp cutting knives and the grossing knife action. TruSlice and TruSlice Digital are new innovative tools based on a guillotine configuration. The TruSlice has plastic inserts whilst the TruSlice Digital has an electronic micrometre attached: both features enable these dissection factors to be controlled. The devices were assessed in five hospitals in the UK. Material and Methods: A total of 267 fixed tissue samples from 23 tissue types were analysed, principally the breast (n = 32) skin (30), rectum (28), colon (27) and cervix (17). Precision and accuracy were evaluated by measuring the defined thickness, and the consistency of achieving the defined thickness of tissue samples taken respectively. Both parameters were expressed as a total percentage of compliance for the cohort of samples accessed. Results: Overall, the mean (standard deviation) score for precision was 81 (11) % whilst the accuracy score was 82 (11) % (both p 
ISSN:0967-4845
DOI:10.1080/09674845.2016.1233791