Editorial Type:
Surgery

Evaluation of the effects of anatomic location, histologic processing, and sample size on shrinkage of skin samples obtained from canine cadavers

Jennifer K. Reagan Department of Veterinary Clinical Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL 61802.

Search for other papers by Jennifer K. Reagan in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed Close
 DVM
,
Laura E. Selmic Department of Veterinary Clinical Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL 61802.

Search for other papers by Laura E. Selmic in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed Close
 BVet Med, MPH
,
Laura D. Garrett Department of Veterinary Clinical Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL 61802.

Search for other papers by Laura D. Garrett in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed Close
 DVM
, and
Kuldeep Singh Department of Pathobiology, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL 61802.

Search for other papers by Kuldeep Singh in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed Close
 BVSC& AH, PhD
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.2460/ajvr.77.9.1036
Volume/Issue:
Volume 77: Issue 9
Online Publication Date:
01 Sep 2016
Restricted access
Sign In Reprints and Permissions Purchase Article

Abstract

OBJECTIVE To evaluate effects of anatomic location, histologic processing, and sample size on shrinkage of excised canine skin samples.

SAMPLE Skin samples from 15 canine cadavers.

PROCEDURES Elliptical samples of the skin, underlying subcutaneous fat, and muscle fascia were collected from the head, hind limb, and lumbar region of each cadaver. Two samples (10 mm and 30 mm) were collected at each anatomic location of each cadaver (one from the left side and the other from the right side). Measurements of length, width, depth, and surface area were collected prior to excision (P1) and after fixation in neutral-buffered 10% formalin for 24 to 48 hours (P2). Length and width were also measured after histologic processing (P3).

RESULTS Length and width decreased significantly at all anatomic locations and for both sample sizes at each processing stage. Hind limb samples had the greatest decrease in length, compared with results for samples obtained from other locations, across all processing stages for both sample sizes. The 30-mm samples had a greater percentage change in length and width between P1 and P2 than did the 10-mm samples. Histologic processing (P2 to P3) had a greater effect on the percentage shrinkage of 10-mm samples. For all locations and both sample sizes, percentage change between P1 and P3 ranged from 24.0% to 37.7% for length and 18.0% to 22.8% for width.

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE Histologic processing, anatomic location, and sample size affected the degree of shrinkage of a canine skin sample from excision to histologic assessment.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE To evaluate effects of anatomic location, histologic processing, and sample size on shrinkage of excised canine skin samples.

SAMPLE Skin samples from 15 canine cadavers.

PROCEDURES Elliptical samples of the skin, underlying subcutaneous fat, and muscle fascia were collected from the head, hind limb, and lumbar region of each cadaver. Two samples (10 mm and 30 mm) were collected at each anatomic location of each cadaver (one from the left side and the other from the right side). Measurements of length, width, depth, and surface area were collected prior to excision (P1) and after fixation in neutral-buffered 10% formalin for 24 to 48 hours (P2). Length and width were also measured after histologic processing (P3).

RESULTS Length and width decreased significantly at all anatomic locations and for both sample sizes at each processing stage. Hind limb samples had the greatest decrease in length, compared with results for samples obtained from other locations, across all processing stages for both sample sizes. The 30-mm samples had a greater percentage change in length and width between P1 and P2 than did the 10-mm samples. Histologic processing (P2 to P3) had a greater effect on the percentage shrinkage of 10-mm samples. For all locations and both sample sizes, percentage change between P1 and P3 ranged from 24.0% to 37.7% for length and 18.0% to 22.8% for width.

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE Histologic processing, anatomic location, and sample size affected the degree of shrinkage of a canine skin sample from excision to histologic assessment.

Contributor Notes

Address correspondence to Dr. Selmic (lselmic@illinois.edu).
Cover American Journal of Veterinary Research
American Journal of Veterinary Research
Publication Date:
01 Sep 2016

  • 1. Kopke LF, Bastos JF, Filho JA, et al. Safety margin: an old and relative concept. An Bras Dermatol 2005; 80: 279–286.

  • 2. Becker GD. The many faces of surgical margins. Am J Clin Oncol 2007; 30: 556–559.

  • 3. Reimer SB, Séguin B, DeCock HE, et al. Evaluation of the effect of routine histologic processing on the size of skin samples obtained from dog. Am J Vet Res 2005; 66: 500–505.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • 4. Kamstock DA, Ehrhart EJ, Getzy DM, et al. Recommended guidelines for submission, trimming, margin evaluation, and reporting of tumor biopsy specimens in veterinary surgical pathology. Vet Pathol 2011; 48: 19–31.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • 5. Auw-Haedrich C, Frick S, Boehringer D, et al. Histologic safety margin in basal cell carcinoma of the eyelid: correlation with recurrence rate. Ophthalmology 2009; 116: 802–806.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • 6. Donnelly L, Mullin C, Balko J, et al. Evaluation of histological grade and histologically tumour-free margins as predictors of local recurrence in completely excised canine mast cell tumours. Vet Comp Oncol 2015; 13: 70–76.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • 7. Giudice C, Stefanello D, Sala M, et al. Feline injection-site sarcoma: recurrence, tumour grading and surgical margin status evaluated using the three-dimensional histological technique. Vet J 2010; 186: 84–88.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • 8. Hudson-Peacock MJ, Matthews JN, Lawrence CM. Relation between size of skin excision, wound and specimen. J Am Acad Dermatol 1995; 32: 1010–1015.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • 9. Dauendorffer JN, Bastuji-Garin S, Guero S, et al. Shrinkage of skin excision specimens: formalin fixation is not the culprit. Br J Dermatol 2009; 160: 810–814.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • 10. Kerns MJ, Carst MA, Olsen TG, et al. Shrinkage of cutaneous specimens: formalin or other factors involved? J Cutan Pathol 2008; 35: 1093–1096.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • 11. Gregory N, Mulvaney M, Pattison T, et al. Shrinkage of skin excision specimens and downcoding. Arch Dermatol 2003; 139: 542–543.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • 12. Upchurch DA, Malenfant RC, Wignall JR, et al. Effects of sample site and size, skin tension lines, surgeon and formalin fixation on shrinkage of skin samples excised from canine cadavers. Am J Vet Res 2014; 75: 1004–1009.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • 13. Laflamme DP. Development and validation of a body condition score system for dogs. Canine Pract 1997; 22(7):10–15.

  • 14. Irwin DH. Tension lines in the skin of the dog. J Small Anim Pract 1966; 7: 593–598.

  • 15. Johnson RE, Sigman JD, Funk GF, et al. Quantification of surgical margin shrinkage in the oral cavity. Head Neck 1997; 19: 281–286.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • 16. Eid I, El-Muhtaseb MS, Mukherjee R, et al. Histological processing variability in the determination of lateral resection margins in rectal cancer. J Clin Pathol 2007; 60: 593–595.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • 17. Lane JE, Kent DE. Surgical margins in the treatment of nonmelanoma skin cancer and Mohs micrographic surgery. Curr Surg 2005; 62: 518–526.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • 18. Fulcher RP, Ludwig LL, Bergman PJ, et al. Evaluation of a two-centimeter lateral surgical margin for excision of grade I and grade II cutaneous mast cell tumors in dogs. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2006; 228: 210–215.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • 19. Simpson AM, Ludwig LL, Newman SJ, et al. Evaluation of surgical margins required for complete excision of cutaneous mast cell tumors in dogs. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2004; 224: 236–240.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • 20. Risselada M, Mathews KG, Griffith E. Surgically planned versus histologically measured lateral tumor margins for resection of cutaneous and subcutaneous mast cell tumors in dogs: 46 cases (2010–2013). J Am Vet Med Assoc 2015; 247: 184–189.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • 21. Phelps HA, Kuntz CA, Milner RJ, et al. Radical excision with five-centimeter margins for treatment of feline injection site sarcomas: 91 cases (1998–2002). J Am Vet Med Assoc 2011; 239: 97–106.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

Advertisement