CorrectClips radiographic markers define each margin in the X-ray, providing more secure and accurate designation of tissue margins. Use of Vector Surgical's Tissue Orientation System can result in:
Better Patient Outcomes
- Fewer unnecessary re-excisions 1, 2
- More accurate re-excisions 1, 2, 3
- Potentially lower cancer recurrence when complete resection is accomplished 4, 5, 6
- Less time lost to re-imaging due to an obstructed view of the lesion or ambiguous orientation
- More efficient radiologist-surgeon communication
- Eliminates risk of needle stick in the OR
CorrectClips Radiographic Markers
- Sterile, single-use set of six clips
- Translucent on X-ray image
- Letter tags representing tissue margins are visible on X-ray
Performance of CorrectClips
- Allow an unobstructed view of the specimen
- Attach securely to both dense and fatty tissue
- Maintain orientation of specimen in the recommended two orthogonal views 7, 8, 9
- Are compatible with compression of the tissue
- Release mechanism allows removal with minimal damage to the tissue
- Breast tissue masses, such as excisional biopsies with X-ray localization
1. Landercasper, J., Attai, D., Atisha, D., Beitsch, P., Bosserman, L., Boughey, J., Carter, J., Edge, S., Feldman, S., Froman, J. and Greenberg, C. "Toolbox to reduce lumpectomy reoperations and improve cosmetic outcome in breast cancer patients: The American Society of Breast Surgeons Consensus Conference." Annals of Surgical Oncology 22.10 (2015): 3174-3183.
2. 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).
3. 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.
4. Dooley, W.C. and Parker, J. “Understanding the Mechanisms Creating False Positive Lumpectomy Margins.” American Journal of Surgery 190 (2005): 606-608.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. Rebner, M; Pennes, D.R.; Baker, D.E.; Adler, D.D.; and Boyd, P. “Two-View Specimen Radiography in Surgical Biopsy of Nonpalpable Breast Masses.” American Journal of Roentgenology 149 (1987): 283-285.
8. “Practice Guideline for Breast Conservation Therapy in the Management of Invasive Breast Carcinoma.”American College of Radiology. Jan. 1, 2002.
9. McCormick, J.T.; Keleher, A.J.; Tikhomirov, V.B.; Budway, R.J.; and Caushaj, P.F. “Analysis of the Use of Specimen Mammography in Breast Conservation Therapy.” American Journal of Surgery 188.4 (2004): 433-436.
Additional Medical References