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. 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 < 0.05, chi-squared test), although this varied with type of tissue. Accuracy and precision were strongly correlated (rp = 0.83, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The TruSlice Digital devices offer an assured precision and accuracy performance which is reproducible across an assortment of tissue types. The use of a micrometre to set tissue slice thickness is innovative and should comply with laboratory accreditation requirements, alleviating concerns of how to tackle issues such as the 'measurement of uncertainty' at the grossing bench.

The impact of involvement of biomedical scientists in specimen dissection and selection of blocks for histopathology: a study of time benefits and specimen handling quality in Ayrshire and Arran area laboratory.

AIMS: To assess possible time benefits of specimen dissection by biomedical scientists (BMSs) and the quality of specimen handling by BMSs, in a department where BMSs trim those specimens requiring simple descriptions, from which standard blocks are taken. METHODS: Specimen handling by BMSs and consultant pathologists was compared. Time taken for each specimen trimmed was recorded prospectively. To determine specimen handling quality, adherence to dissection standard operating procedures (SOPs) was assessed by recording retrospectively whether or not each action in the SOP had been performed. Information on subsequently required extra levels or blocks was recorded. RESULTS: Analysis of data from 672 specimens trimmed by consultants showed that any given action in the SOPs was performed on average on 60.2% of applicable/assessable specimens; for 660 similar specimens trimmed by BMSs, each action was performed on average on 80.1% of specimens. Of the specimens where data on extra blocks were recorded, extra blocks were required in 3% of those trimmed by pathologists and in 4% of those trimmed by BMSs. Extra levels were required in 12% of those trimmed by pathologists and in 16% of those trimmed by BMSs. BMS trimming saves 16 hours of consultant time each month. The difference between pathologists and BMSs in time for each specimen trimmed is negligible. CONCLUSIONS: The advantages of increased adherence to trimming SOPs and saving consultant time outweigh the relatively small number of extra blocks and levels required when BMSs trim. There is no reduction in quality of dissection.