I purchased the book and applaud the effort because there is some decent 
information.  However, the term hack is a poor choice for histology and many of 
the fixes or secrets described are because some hack failed to do her/his job 
at an earlier step in the process. (Definition of hack. transitive verb. 1 a : 
to cut or sever with repeated irregular or unskillful blows. b : to cut or 
shape by or as if by crude or ruthless strokes. As a noun it is used to mean a 
mediocre performer or worker; tiresome drudge.)

Some methods, while useful in some settings, have important cons not listed, 
cons which may be counterproductive. For example using Mercurochrome or Eosin 
to mark tissue may preclude further testing with fluorescent endpoints, such as 
FISH.  Plus if you really want to use Eosin to mark the dermis, it is far 
easier to add used Eosin to one alcohol in the tissue processor. That gives a 
visible indicator of carryover, indicating need to change or rotate solutions.

Other methods seem (to me) like workarounds or Band-Aids for Labs w poor 
grossing, poor processing or poor reagents or poor technique or poor method 
choices, eg, 2.14 describes a situation where an incompetent grosser truly 
hacks or crudely cuts into unfixed tissue yielding too thick a slice. The real 
solution is to fix the tissue before slicing. Poor fixation results in poor 
processing and poor sectioning and poor staining reactions.

For another example, Cassette sponges offer few advantages, while folding lens 
paper allows the grossers to see through the paper and know all pieces are 
inside before closing the cassette lid.  The tissue does not stick to it, and 
small flakes can be scraped from the lens paper at embedding. Last during 
folding, the forceps can be cleaned at grossing and during unfolding, forceps 
may be cleaned w the paper after embedding.  Sponges also result in greater 
solution carryover.

Several colloquial naming conventions, eg, chamber saver 2.16 for 
underprocessed tissue may be memorable to some readers, yet seem  are odd to me.

This 2.16 method is an especially useful technique which may also be done to 
extend paraffin time, whenever poor sectioning due to poor processing is 
encountered at the microtome.
Variation 1 Place the block back into the proper sized mold and return to the 
heated side of the embedding center for an hour to extend processing 
(reprocessing). Then remove the old paraffin from the mold w a plastic pipette, 
 then re-embed, replacing the paraffin w new.
Variation 2 for outside blocks we routinely replace an unknown paraffin from 
another lab by melting in a mold, and ‘reprocess’ in our (blue ribbon) paraffin 
for 1 hr in a mold in the embedding center then re-embed.

Good first effort, yet this book could be improved by a good editor, by more 
collaborators, by illustrations, and the addition of variations or other uses 
as described above for 2.16.
The font size and format will cause many readers to suffer because of the small 
font.

Steve
Steve A. McClain, MD
_______________________________________________
Histonet mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.utsouthwestern.edu/mailman/listinfo/histonet

Reply via email to