For Surgeons

Using our tissue margin dyes, surgeons have greater confidence that if re-excision is required, it is valid and necessary to prevent cancer recurrence.

Specimen margins are best defined by the surgeon, who knows the original shape and position of the tissue during surgery.

The Importance

In cancer surgery, the single most important predictor of local recurrence is the tissue margins.1

The Problem

Customary methods used to label tissue margins cause error. Medical research shows discordance rates of 31% to 52% in the identification of specimen margins between surgery, pathology and radiology.2, 3 This error may lead to unnecessary re-excisions or cancer recurrence.4

The Solution

Vector Surgical's Tissue Orientation System, consisting of theMarginMarker® Sterile Ink Kit and CorrectClips® Radiographic Markers, provides secure and accurate designation of specimen margins, potentially resulting in fewer unnecessary re-excisions, more accurate re-excisions, lower cancer recurrence and improved OR safety.


Surgeons have greater confidence that if re-excision is required, it is valid and necessary to prevent cancer recurrence. Using MarginMarker and CorrectClips, there is greater certainty that the designated margin for re-excision is the correct margin featuring abnormal tissue. MarginMarker and CorrectClips help to ensure that tissue margins are interpreted consistently across the OR, radiology and pathology.


MarginMarker sterile inks adhere effectively to tissue, allowing precise application. CorrectClips grip both dense and fatty breast tissue securely.


Better Patient Outcomes
  • Fewer unnecessary re-excisions 1, 5
  • More accurate re-excisions 1, 5, 6
  • Potentially lower cancer recurrence when complete resection is accomplished 7, 8, 9
  • Better cosmesis due to re-excision of less tissue
Valuable Time Saved
  • More efficient surgeon-pathologist communication
Improved Safety
  • Less risk of needle stick in the OR



1. Dooley, W.C. and Parker, J. “Understanding the Mechanisms Creating False Positive Lumpectomy Margins.” American Journal of Surgery 190 (2005): 606-608.

2. Britton, P.D.; Sonoda, L.I.; Yamamoto, A.K.; Koo, B.; Soh, E.; and Goud, A. “Breast Surgical Specimen Radiographs: How Reliable Are They?” European Journal of Radiology 79 (2011): 245-249.

3. Molina, M.A.; Snell, S.; Franceschi, D.; Jorda, M.; Gomez, C.; Moffat, F.L.; Powell, J.; and Avisar, E. “Breast Specimen Orientation.” Annals of Surgical Oncology 16 (2009): 285-288.

4. McCahill, L.E.; Single, R.M.; Aiello Bowles, E.J.; Feigelson, H.S.; James, T.A.; Barney, T.; Engel, J.M.; and Onitilo, A.A. “Variability in Reexcision Following Breast Conservation Surgery.” Journal of the American Medical Association 307.5 (2012): 467-475.

5. Singh, M.; Singh, G.; Hogan, K.T.; Atkins, K.A.; and Schroen, A.T. “The Effect of Intraoperative Specimen Inking on Lumpectomy Re-excision Rates.” World Journal of Surgical Oncology 8.4 (2010).

6. Lovrics, P.J.; Cornacchi, S. D.; Farrokhyar, F.; Garnett, A.; Chen, V.; Franic, S.; and Simunovic, M. “The Relationship Between Surgical Factors and Margin Status After Breast-Conservation Surgery for Early Stage Breast Cancer.” The American Journal of Surgery (2009): 197, 740-746.

7. Gibson, G.R.; Lesnikoski, B.A.; Yoo, J.; Mott, L.A.; Cady, B.; and Barth, R.J. Jr. “A Comparison of Ink-Directed and Traditional Whole-Cavity Re-Excision for Breast Lumpectomy Specimens with Positive Margins.” Annals of Surgical Oncology 8.9 (2001): 693-704.

8. Menes, T.S.; Tartter, P.I.; Bleiweiss, I.; Godbold, J.H.; Estabrook, A.; and Smith, S.R. “The Consequence of Multiple Re-excisions to Obtain Clear Lumpectomy Margins in Breast Cancer Patients.” Annals of Surgical Oncology 12.11 (2005): 881-885.

9. Gage, I.; Schnitt, S.J.; Nixon, A.J.; Silver, B.; Recht, A.; Troyan, S.L.; Eberlein, T.; Love, S.M.; Gelman, R.; Harris, J.R.; and Connolly, J.L. “Pathologic Margin Involvement and the Risk of Recurrence in Patients Treated with Breast-Conserving Therapy.” Cancer 78.9 (1996): 1921-1928.

Additional Medical References