Comparison of Aerosolised and Traditional Tumour Margin Inking: A Prospective Blinded Histopathological Review in Canine Skin Tumours

Inking of canine skin tumours facilitates histopathological margin assessment. While traditional dab application is standard practice, aerosolised (spray) application may offer practical advantages. The objective of this study was to determine if aerosolised ink application provides comparable margin coverage to traditional dab methods and to compare time of application and volume of ink used. A blinded, randomised study on 19 canine skin tumours was performed. Each tumour was sectioned into two halves and one half randomly assigned a method (dab or spray) and ink colour (black or blue) with the other half receiving the alternative method and colour. Margin coverage (percentage of margin covered by ink), application time and ink volume were measured. Spray application was non-inferior to dab with respect to margin coverage, with mean margin coverage estimated as being 0.25 to 0.41 percentage points greater and lower limits of 95% confidence intervals -0.72 and -0.35 percentage points, respectively. Spray application was estimated as being 38 s faster on average (p < 0.001) but used approximately 0.5 mL more ink (p < 0.001). These findings suggest that aerosolised inking provides comparable margin coverage while reducing application time; however, ink placement fidelity was not assessed, and further evaluation is warranted to confirm full clinical equivalence.

Authors: K. L. Wouters, S. R. Snelling, J. M. Morton and S. Stokes Title: Comparison of Aerosolised and Traditional Tumour Margin Inking: A Prospective Blinded Histopathological Review in Canine Skin Tumours Full source: Vet Comp Oncol, 2026,Vol Document type: Journal Article
Résumé, analyse et commentaires
Aucun.
Photo
Aucune.
Analysis
None.
Abstract	Source
Inking of canine skin tumours facilitates histopathological margin assessment. While traditional dab application is standard practice, aerosolised (spray) application may offer practical advantages. The objective of this study was to determine if aerosolised ink application provides comparable margin coverage to traditional dab methods and to compare time of application and volume of ink used. A blinded, randomised study on 19 canine skin tumours was performed. Each tumour was sectioned into two halves and one half randomly assigned a method (dab or spray) and ink colour (black or blue) with the other half receiving the alternative method and colour. Margin coverage (percentage of margin covered by ink), application time and ink volume were measured. Spray application was non-inferior to dab with respect to margin coverage, with mean margin coverage estimated as being 0.25 to 0.41 percentage points greater and lower limits of 95% confidence intervals -0.72 and -0.35 percentage points, respectively. Spray application was estimated as being 38 s faster on average (p < 0.001) but used approximately 0.5 mL more ink (p < 0.001). These findings suggest that aerosolised inking provides comparable margin coverage while reducing application time; however, ink placement fidelity was not assessed, and further evaluation is warranted to confirm full clinical equivalence.