Medical Research

Clinical and Economic Research Shows Improved Outcomes Using Vector Surgical Devices

Evidence: MarginMarker allows “surgeons to better target the area of potential residual disease…”

Medical research shows a compelling need for more accurate specimen orientation and demonstrates the improved outcomes and cost effectiveness from using MarginMarker.

Evidence: Inaccurate Margin Identification Using Suture

Molina et al. reported a 31% overall disagreement rate between surgeons and pathologists when orienting excised tissue using suture. Altman et al. summarized this, stating “If a pathologist found a positive margin, there was nearly a one in three chance that a surgeon would re-excise the wrong margin.” Arnaout et al. replicated the finding, reporting a 42% overall discordance rate.

Evidence: Fewer, More Accurate Re-excisions Using MarginMarker

Altman et al. recently reported a significantly higher incidence of residual cancer in re-excision specimens oriented using MarginMarker compared to suture. The authors concluded that MarginMarker inks “provide a more accurate 3-dimensional location of the true positive margin.”

Evidence: MarginMarker is Cost-Effective

Researchers using MarginMarker concluded that “surgeon performed intraoperative specimen inking is not only a more accurate method for specimen orientation, but it is also cost-effective.


1. Adsay NV, Basturk O, Saka B, et al. Whipple made simple for surgical pathologists: orientation, dissection, and sampling of pancreaticoduodenectomy specimens for a more practical and accurate evaluation of pancreatic, distal common bile duct, and ampullary tumors. Am J Surg Pathol. 2014;38(4):480-493.
2. Altman AM, Nguyen DD, Johnson B, et al. Intraoperative inking is superior to suture marking for specimen orientation in breast cancer. Breast J. 2020; 26(4):661-667.
3. Arnaout A, Robertson S, Gravel D, Rockwell G, Ayroud Y. The specimen margin assessment technique (SMART) trial: a novel 3-D method of identifying the most accurate method of breast specimen orientation. Paper presented at: Society of Surgical Oncology Annual Cancer Symposium 2016; Boston, MA.
4. Bartelink H, Horiot JC, Poortmans P, et al. Recurrence rates after treatment of breast cancer with standard radiotherapy with or without additional radiation. N Engl J Med. 2001;345(19):1378-1387.
5. Britton PD, Sonoda LI, Yamamoto AK, Koo B, Soh E, Goud A. Breast surgical specimen radiographs: how reliable are they? Eur J Radiol. 2011;79(2):245-249.
6. Chand N, Aertssen AMG, Royle GT. Axillary “exclusion”—A successful technique for reducing seroma formation after mastectomy and axillary dissection. Adv Breast Cancer Res. 2013;02(01):1-6.
7. Dooley WC, Parker J. Understanding the mechanisms creating false positive lumpectomy margins. Am J Surg. 2005;190(4):606-608.
8. Evans DB, Farnell MB, Lillemoe KD, Vollmer C Jr, Strasberg SM, Schulick RD. Surgical treatment of resectable and borderline resectable pancreas cancer: expert consensus statement. Ann Surg Oncol. 2009;16(7):1736-1744.
9. Gage I, Schnitt SJ, Nixon AJ, et al. Pathologic margin involvement and the risk of recurrence in patients treated with breast-conserving therapy. Cancer. 1996;78(9):1921-1928.
10. Gibson GR, Lesnikoski BA, Yoo J, Mott LA, Cady B, Barth RJ Jr. A comparison of ink-directed and traditional whole-cavity re-excision for breast lumpectomy specimens with positive margins. Ann Surg Oncol. 2001;8(9):693-704.
11. Guidi AJ, Tworek JA, Mais DD, Souers RJ, Blond BJ, Brown RW. Breast specimen processing and reporting with an emphasis on margin evaluation: A college of American Pathologists survey of 866 laboratories. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2018;142(4):496-506.
12. Hinni ML, Ferlito A, Brandwein-Gensler MS, et al. Surgical margins in head and neck cancer: a contemporary review. Head Neck. 2013;35(9):1362-1370.
13. Kandel R, Coakley N, Werier J, et al. Surgical margins and handling of soft-tissue sarcoma in extremities: a clinical practice guideline. Curr Oncol. 2013;20(3):e247-54.
14. Katz MHG, Merchant NB, Brower S, et al. Standardization of surgical and pathologic variables is needed in multicenter trials of adjuvant therapy for pancreatic cancer: results from the ACOSOG Z5031 trial. Ann Surg Oncol. 2011;18(2):337-344.
15. Kontos M, Petrou A, Prassas E, et al. Pressure dressing in breast surgery: is this the solution for seroma formation? J BUON. 2008;13(1):65-67.
16. Landercasper J, Attai D, Atisha D, et al. Toolbox to reduce lumpectomy reoperations and improve cosmetic outcome in breast cancer patients: The American Society of Breast Surgeons consensus conference. Ann Surg Oncol. 2015; 22(10):3174-3183.
17. Lovrics PJ, Cornacchi SD, Farrokhyar F, et al. The relationship between surgical factors and margin status after breast-conservation surgery for early stage breast cancer. Am J Surg. 2009;197(6):740-746.
18. MacDonald HR, Silverstein MJ, Mabry H, et al. Local control in ductal carcinoma in situ treated by excision alone: incremental benefit of larger margins. Am J Surg. 2005;190(4):521-525.
19. McCahill LE, Single RM, Aiello Bowles EJ, et al. Variability in reexcision following breast conservation surgery. JAMA. 2012;307(5):467-475.
20. Menes TS, Tartter PI, Bleiweiss I, Godbold JH, Estabrook A, Smith SR. The consequence of multiple re-excisions to obtain clear lumpectomy margins in breast cancer patients. Ann Surg Oncol. 2005;12(11):881-885.
21. Merkow RP, Bilimoria KY, Bentrem DJ, et al. National assessment of margin status as a quality indicator after pancreatic cancer surgery. Ann Surg Oncol. 2014;21(4):1067-1074.
22. Molina MA, Snell S, Franceschi D, et al. Breast specimen orientation. Ann Surg Oncol. 2009; 16(2):285-288.
23. Moran MS, Schnitt SJ, Giuliano AE, et al. Society of Surgical Oncology-American Society for Radiation Oncology consensus guideline on margins for breast-conserving surgery with whole-breast irradiation in stages I and II invasive breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32(14):1507-1515.
24. Silverstein MJ, Lagios MD, Recht A, et al. Image-detected breast cancer: state of the art diagnosis and treatment. J Am Coll Surg. 2005;201(4):586-597.
25. Singh M, Singh G, Hogan KT, Atkins KA, Schroen AT. The effect of intraoperative specimen inking on lumpectomy re-excision rates. World J Surg Oncol. 2010; 8(1):4.
26. Tempero MA, Arnoletti JP, Behrman SW, et al. Pancreatic adenocarcinoma, version 2.2012: Featured updates to the NCCN guidelines. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2012;10(6):703-713.
27. Tuschy B, Berlit S, Romero S, et al. Clinical aspects of intraoperative radiotherapy in early breast cancer: short-term complications after IORT in women treated with low energy x-rays. Radiat Oncol. 2013;8(1):95.
28. Varadhachary GR, Tamm EP, Abbruzzese JL, et al. Borderline resectable pancreatic cancer: definitions, management, and role of preoperative therapy. Ann Surg Oncol. 2006;13(8):1035-1046.
29. Van Den Bruele AB, Jasra B, Smotherman C, Crandall M, Samiian L. Cost-effectiveness of surgeon performed intraoperative specimen ink in breast conservation surgery. J Surg Res. 2018; 231:441-447.
30. Verbeke CS. Resection margins and R1 rates in pancreatic cancer--are we there yet? Histopathology. 2008;52(7):787-796.
31. Verbeke CS, Menon KV. Redefining resection margin status in pancreatic cancer. HPB (Oxford). 2009;11(4):282-289.

Vector Surgical’s Innovative Devices

A complimentary sample will be sent for your review.

Request a Sample

Vector Surgical Device Demonstration

Schedule a live, virtual demonstration at a date and time that work best for you.

Request a Demonstration