ArticleVeterinary surgery : VS2019
Comparison between optical coherence tomographic and histopathologic appearances of artifacts caused by common surgical conditions and instrumentation.
Article in Veterinary surgery : VS, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Biophotonics in veterinary medicine: current clinical applications, translational challenges, and emerging opportunities.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2026Article
- Optical coherence tomography imaging of excised canine apocrine gland anal sac adenocarcinoma tumours.Veterinary and comparative oncology · 2021Article
- Evaluating optical coherence tomography for surgical margin assessment of canine mammary tumours.Veterinary and comparative oncology · 2021Article
- The feasibility and utility of optical coherence tomography directed histopathology for surgical margin assessment of canine mast cell tumours.Veterinary and comparative oncology · 2021Article
- Morpho-molecular signal correlation between optical coherence tomography and Raman spectroscopy for superior image interpretation and clinical diagnosis.Scientific reports · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo 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
designEx vivo study. ANIMALS: Five canine cadavers.
methodsSkin, 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.
resultsMost 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.
conclusionCommon 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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.