Dermatologic surgery : official publication for American Society for Dermatologic Surgery [et al.] · 2026
Practice Preferences of Mohs Histology Technicians: A Web-Based Survey.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Huang Chenan A, Wong Summer, Lane Jaime M, Ruley Ainsley J, Hrin Matthew L, Ahn Christine S, Feldman Steven R
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Frozen section processing (FSP) enables real-time histologic margin assessment during Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS). FSP techniques are variable, and processing speeds are poorly characterized.
OBJECTIVE: To identify rate-limiting steps and technique variations in FSP.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A web-based survey was distributed to MMS and dermatopathology technicians assessing slow steps, challenging tissue types, technique variability, prevalence techniques, and practice preferences.
RESULTS: A 5-point Likert rating of 3 to 5 was defined as slow. Response rates above 50% categorized the step as slow, and response rates below 50% categorized the step as fast. Slow steps included flattening/debulking (78%), sectioning (58%), staining (58%), and embedding (53%). Fast steps included aligning the cryotome (40%), acquiring the sample (22%), mounting to a chuck (18%), mounting to a slide (16%), inking (9%), and adding a coverslip (8%). Difficult-to-section tissues were adipose (65%), cartilage (46%), and thin tissue (39%). Variable steps include flattening/debulking (36%) and embedding (36%). The most common preparation method was the glass slide technique (63%), then the heat extractor (28%), and finally well bars (9%). Most did not use an embedding device (59%).
CONCLUSION: Flattening/debulking, embedding, sectioning, and staining can benefit from increased processing speed. Simplifying adipose, cartilage, and thin tissue processing can reduce the burden on technicians.
OBJECTIVE: To identify rate-limiting steps and technique variations in FSP.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A web-based survey was distributed to MMS and dermatopathology technicians assessing slow steps, challenging tissue types, technique variability, prevalence techniques, and practice preferences.
RESULTS: A 5-point Likert rating of 3 to 5 was defined as slow. Response rates above 50% categorized the step as slow, and response rates below 50% categorized the step as fast. Slow steps included flattening/debulking (78%), sectioning (58%), staining (58%), and embedding (53%). Fast steps included aligning the cryotome (40%), acquiring the sample (22%), mounting to a chuck (18%), mounting to a slide (16%), inking (9%), and adding a coverslip (8%). Difficult-to-section tissues were adipose (65%), cartilage (46%), and thin tissue (39%). Variable steps include flattening/debulking (36%) and embedding (36%). The most common preparation method was the glass slide technique (63%), then the heat extractor (28%), and finally well bars (9%). Most did not use an embedding device (59%).
CONCLUSION: Flattening/debulking, embedding, sectioning, and staining can benefit from increased processing speed. Simplifying adipose, cartilage, and thin tissue processing can reduce the burden on technicians.