Christina J Cocca1, Laura E Selmic1, Jonathan Samuelson2, Pin-Chieh Huang3,4, Jianfeng Wang3, Stephen A Boppart3,4,5,6. 1. Department of Veterinary Clinical Medicine, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, Illinois. 2. Department of Pathobiology, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, Illinois. 3. Beckman Institute for Advanced Science and Technology, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, Illinois. 4. Department of Bioengineering, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, Illinois. 5. Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, Illinois. 6. Carle-Illinois College of Medicine, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, Illinois.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To document the appearance of artifacts created by commonly encountered surgical conditions and instrumentation on optical coherence tomography (OCT) and to compare these findings with histopathology. STUDY DESIGN: Ex vivo study. ANIMALS: Five canine cadavers. METHODS: Skin, subcutaneous fat, skeletal muscle, and fascia samples were obtained from fresh canine cadavers. Blood pooling, hemostatic crushing, scalpel blade cut, monopolar electrosurgery, bipolar vessel sealing device, and ultrasonic energy surgical artifacts were induced on each tissue type. Each specimen was imaged with OCT and subsequently histologically processed. RESULTS: Most surgical instrumentation used for tumor excision created a high-scattering region with local architectural disruption. Blood pooling was visible as a high-scattering layer overlying tissue with normal architecture. Only the scalpel blade created a focal, low-scattering area representing a sharply demarcated cut within the tissue distinct from the appearance of other instrumentation. CONCLUSION: Common surgical instruments and conditions encountered during tumor excision produced high-scattering OCT artifacts in tissues commonly seen at surgical margins. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The clinical value of OCT hinges on the ability of personnel to interpret this novel imaging and recognize artifacts. Defining and describing the appearance of common surgical artifacts provides a foundation to create image libraries with known histological and OCT interpretation, ultimately improving the diagnostic accuracy of OCT for assessment of surgical margins.
OBJECTIVE: To document the appearance of artifacts created by commonly encountered surgical conditions and instrumentation on optical coherence tomography (OCT) and to compare these findings with histopathology. STUDY DESIGN: Ex vivo study. ANIMALS: Five canine cadavers. METHODS: Skin, subcutaneous fat, skeletal muscle, and fascia samples were obtained from fresh canine cadavers. Blood pooling, hemostatic crushing, scalpel blade cut, monopolar electrosurgery, bipolar vessel sealing device, and ultrasonic energy surgical artifacts were induced on each tissue type. Each specimen was imaged with OCT and subsequently histologically processed. RESULTS: Most surgical instrumentation used for tumor excision created a high-scattering region with local architectural disruption. Blood pooling was visible as a high-scattering layer overlying tissue with normal architecture. Only the scalpel blade created a focal, low-scattering area representing a sharply demarcated cut within the tissue distinct from the appearance of other instrumentation. CONCLUSION: Common surgical instruments and conditions encountered during tumor excision produced high-scattering OCT artifacts in tissues commonly seen at surgical margins. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The clinical value of OCT hinges on the ability of personnel to interpret this novel imaging and recognize artifacts. Defining and describing the appearance of common surgical artifacts provides a foundation to create image libraries with known histological and OCT interpretation, ultimately improving the diagnostic accuracy of OCT for assessment of surgical margins.
Authors: Valerie J Poirier; Douglas H Thamm; Ilene D Kurzman; K Ann Jeglum; Ruthanne Chun; Joyce E Obradovich; Maura O'Brien; Rogers M Fred; Brenda S Phillips; David M Vail Journal: J Vet Intern Med Date: 2002 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 3.333
Authors: D Huang; E A Swanson; C P Lin; J S Schuman; W G Stinson; W Chang; M R Hee; T Flotte; K Gregory; C A Puliafito Journal: Science Date: 1991-11-22 Impact factor: 47.728
Authors: Kelly J Mesa; Laura E Selmic; Paritosh Pande; Guillermo L Monroy; Jennifer Reagan; Jonathan Samuelson; Elizabeth Driskell; Joanne Li; Marina Marjanovic; Eric J Chaney; Stephen A Boppart Journal: Lasers Surg Med Date: 2017-03-20 Impact factor: 4.025
Authors: Laura E Selmic; Jonathan Samuelson; Jennifer K Reagan; Kelly J Mesa; Elizabeth Driskell; Joanne Li; Marina Marjanovic; Stephen A Boppart Journal: Vet Comp Oncol Date: 2018-11-13 Impact factor: 2.613
Authors: Brendan F Kennedy; Robert A McLaughlin; Kelsey M Kennedy; Lixin Chin; Philip Wijesinghe; Andrea Curatolo; Alan Tien; Maxine Ronald; Bruce Latham; Christobel M Saunders; David D Sampson Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2015-06-29 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Freddy T Nguyen; Adam M Zysk; Eric J Chaney; Jan G Kotynek; Uretz J Oliphant; Frank J Bellafiore; Kendrith M Rowland; Patricia A Johnson; Stephen A Boppart Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2009-11-15 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: R Sarin; S P Somsekhar; R Kumar; Gupta Pawan; Jain Sumeet; Jindal Pramoj; Zamre Vaishali; Pasha Firoz; P M Parikh; S Aggarwal; R Koul Journal: South Asian J Cancer Date: 2018 Apr-Jun
Authors: Iwan W Schie; Fabian Placzek; Florian Knorr; Eliana Cordero; Lara M Wurster; Gregers G Hermann; Karin Mogensen; Thomas Hasselager; Wolfgang Drexler; Jürgen Popp; Rainer A Leitgeb Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2021-05-11 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Carolina Fabelo; Laura E Selmic; Pin-Cheh Huang; Jonathan P Samuelson; Jennifer K Reagan; Alexandra Kalamaras; Vincent Wavreille; Guillermo L Monroy; Marina Marjanovic; Stephen A Boppart Journal: Vet Comp Oncol Date: 2020-07-26 Impact factor: 2.613