Touch Impression Cytology Versus Frozen Section as Intraoperative Consultation Diagnosis
Keywords:
Touch Imprint Cytology, Frozen Section, Intraoperative Consultation Examination.Abstract
The efficacy of Touch Imprint Cytology in the diagnosis of various pathological processes was evaluated and compared with
Frozen Section in intraoperative consultation. We examined 60 cases from various sites of the body that were referred for
intraoperative consultation. All cases were analyzed by Touch Imprint Cytology followed by Frozen section. We found
diagnostic accuracy of both procedures comparable. The diagnostic accuracy in distinguishing benign from malignant lesions
by combined procedures was 100%. There were no false positive or false negative cases. For diagnosing specific subtypes of
malignancy, the diagnostic accuracy of each method alone was 96.6% with a sensitivity of 86% and specificity of 100% and
the combined sensitivity 90%. Touch Imprint Cytology provided better cellular morphology and fewer artifacts. On the other
hand Frozen Sections provided more tissue architectural details but frequently hampered by freezing artifacts. We conclude
that both Touch Imprint Cytology and Frozen Sections are dependable intraoperative consultation diagnostic modalities.
Touch Imprint Cytology alone may provide a correct diagnosis in vast majority of cases with minimal expense and without
the need of sophisticated cryostat machine thus making it quite suitable for many hospitals where cryostat machines are not
available
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Readers may “Share-copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format” and “Adapt-remix, transform, and build upon the material”. The readers must give appropriate credit to the source of the material and indicate if changes were made to the material. Readers may not use the material for commercial purpose. The readers may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.
