Vitrectomy-Assisted Biopsy: An in vitro Study on the Impact of Cut Rate and Probe Size.
23-gauge vitrectomy
25-gauge vitrectomy
Cut rate
Digital image analysis
Pars plana vitrectomy
Vitrectomy-assisted biopsy
Journal
Ocular oncology and pathology
ISSN: 2296-4681
Titre abrégé: Ocul Oncol Pathol
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101656139
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Oct 2021
Oct 2021
Historique:
received:
09
12
2020
accepted:
24
04
2021
entrez:
1
11
2021
pubmed:
2
11
2021
medline:
2
11
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The aim of this study was to optimize the technique of performing vitrectomy-assisted biopsy of intraocular tumors by comparing the cytohistological findings in specimens obtained with different vitrectomy probes and cut rates. Vitrectomy-assisted biopsies were taken from a fresh porcine liver. For each sampling, the vacuum level was 300 mm Hg. The following parameters were compared; cut rate (60, 600 and 6,000 cuts per minute [cpm]), probe type (standard and two-dimensional cutting [TDC]), and probe diameter (23-gauge and 25-gauge). The specimens were assessed by automated whole-slide imaging analysis and conventional light microscopy. Seventy-two biopsies were analyzed for the number of hepatocytes, total area of tissue fragments, and total stained area of each microscope slide. For all probe types, these parameters were significantly and positively correlated with the cut rate. TDC probes led to significantly higher scores than those of standard probes, independent of the cut rate. There were no significant differences in results when using 23-gauge or 25-gauge standard probes. Light microscopic examination demonstrated well-preserved cells sufficient for cytohistological analyses in all investigated cases. The higher the cut rate, the larger is the amount of aspirated cellular material. There were no significant differences between 23-gauge and 25-gauge biopsies. Cut rates up to 6,000 cpm did not adversely affect the cytohistological features of the samples.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34722491
doi: 10.1159/000516960
pii: oop-0007-0346
pmc: PMC8531738
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
346-352Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2021 by S. Karger AG, Basel.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare. Dr. Heegaard is an editorial board member of Ocular Oncology and Pathology.
Références
Br J Ophthalmol. 2016 Apr;100(4):456-62
pubmed: 26231747
Ophthalmology. 2013 Dec;120(12):2565-2572
pubmed: 24053996
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2015 Sep;56(10):5917-24
pubmed: 26377078
Prog Retin Eye Res. 2011 Sep;30(5):285-95
pubmed: 21658465
Acta Ophthalmol. 2018 Feb;96(1):31-38
pubmed: 28444874
Acta Cytol. 1989 Nov-Dec;33(6):809-13
pubmed: 2488680
Cancers (Basel). 2019 Jul 30;11(8):
pubmed: 31366043
Eye (Lond). 2008 Feb;22(2):289-93
pubmed: 17767143
Eur J Ophthalmol. 2014 Nov-Dec;24(6):911-7
pubmed: 24846625
Br J Ophthalmol. 2005 Aug;89(8):946-9
pubmed: 16024840
Retina. 2017 Jul;37(7):1377-1382
pubmed: 28486310
Ophthalmology. 1993 Sep;100(9):1399-406
pubmed: 8371930
Retina. 2005 Sep;25(6):795-7
pubmed: 16141874
Retina. 2018 Sep;38 Suppl 1:S79-S87
pubmed: 29280938
Retina. 1993;13(2):160-5
pubmed: 8393210
Gastrointest Endosc. 2009 Dec;70(6):1093-7
pubmed: 19640524
Melanoma Res. 2001 Jun;11(3):255-63
pubmed: 11468514
Endoscopy. 2013;45(2):86-92
pubmed: 23307148
Ophthalmic Surg Lasers Imaging Retina. 2017 May 1;48(5):406-415
pubmed: 28499052
Ophthalmology. 2006 Jun;113(6):1028-31
pubmed: 16751041