title: Comparison of 3 Handling Techniques for Endoscopically Obtained Gastric and Duodenal Biopsy Specimens: A Prospective Study in Dogs and Cats.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Limited evidence exists in the literature regarding whether a specific mount is preferable to use for processing endoscopically obtained gastrointestinal biopsy specimens.
  
  
  OBJECTIVE
  To compare 3 methods of handling endoscopically obtained gastrointestinal biopsy specimens from collection to laboratory processing and to determine if any technique produced superior results.
  
  
  METHODS
  Twenty-three dogs and cats presented for gastrointestinal signs.
  
  
  METHODS
  Prospective study of dogs and cats presented with gastrointestinal signs to a veterinary teaching referral hospital which underwent upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. Biopsy specimens were taken from the stomach and duodenum and submitted to the laboratory using 3 techniques: mounted on a cucumber slice, mounted on a moisturized synthetic foam sponge, and floating free in formalin. The techniques were compared with regard to the specimens' width, orientation, presence of artifacts, and pathologist's confidence in diagnosis.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Twenty-three patients were included, with a total of 528 biopsies collected. Specimens on cucumber slice and on sponge were significantly wider (P < .001 and P = .001, respectively) compared to those floating free in formalin (mean width of 3.81 versus 3.31 and 2.52 mm, respectively). However, specimens on synthetic sponge had significantly fewer artifacts compared to those on cucumber slice (P = .05) and those floating free in formalin (P = .02). Confidence in the diagnosis also was superior with the sponge technique over floating free specimens (P = .002).
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  The use of mounted gastrointestinal biopsy specimens was superior over the use of specimens floating free in formalin. This technique improved the quality of the specimens and the pathologist's confidence in their histopathologic interpretation.
authors.affiliation: Internal Medicine Department, Université Paris-Est, Ecole Nationale Vétérinaire d'Alfort, Maisons-Alfort Cedex, France.|Langford Veterinary Services, Internal Medicine Department, Small Animal Referral Hospital, University of Bristol, Langford, UK.
authors.forename: G C
authors.initials: GC
authors.lastname: Ruiz
authors.affiliation: Anatomical Pathology Unit, Biopôle, Université Paris-Est, Ecole Nationale Vétérinaire d'Alfort, Maisons-Alfort Cedex, France.
authors.forename: E
authors.initials: E
authors.lastname: Reyes-Gomez
authors.affiliation: Langford Veterinary Services, Internal Medicine Department, Small Animal Referral Hospital, University of Bristol, Langford, UK.
authors.forename: E J
authors.initials: EJ
authors.lastname: Hall
authors.affiliation: Internal Medicine Department, Université Paris-Est, Ecole Nationale Vétérinaire d'Alfort, Maisons-Alfort Cedex, France.
authors.forename: V
authors.initials: V
authors.lastname: Freiche
mesh_terms: D000818:Animals; D001706:Biopsy / Q000662:veterinary; D002371:Cat Diseases / Q000473:pathology*; D002415:Cats; D004283:Dog Diseases / Q000473:pathology*; D004285:Dogs; D004378:Duodenal Diseases / Q000473:pathology / Q000662:veterinary; D004386:Duodenum / Q000473:pathology*; D011446:Prospective Studies; D013048:Specimen Handling / Q000379:methods / Q000662:veterinary*; D013270:Stomach / Q000473:pathology*; D013272:Stomach Diseases / Q000473:pathology / Q000662:veterinary
keywords: Duodenoscopy; Gastroenterology; Histopathology; Mount