ImageThumbnail ImageThumbnail ImageThumbnail

The New Standard for Tissue Orientation®

CorrectClips provide secure orientation of excised tissue on the image. CorrectClips allow a complete view of tissue so that lesions are quickly located. The surgeon applies the sterile clips while in the OR. The clips are translucent on the image; only the letters indicating orientation show brightly. This is superior to metal tags, which block the view of tissue behind the tag, and which cast a shadow that also occludes visibility.


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

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. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. 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.

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