SciELO - Scientific Electronic Library Online

 
vol.95 número4ASIA case after injection of liquid silicone,On the different methods of micrographic surgery and their differences in the visualization of the tumor and surgical margin, and in the contribution to clinical and oncological aspects, índice de autoresíndice de assuntospesquisa de artigos
Home Pagelista alfabética de periódicos  

Serviços Personalizados

Journal

Artigo

Indicadores

Links relacionados

Compartilhar


Anais Brasileiros de Dermatologia

versão impressa ISSN 0365-0596versão On-line ISSN 1806-4841

An. Bras. Dermatol. vol.95 no.4 Rio de Janeiro jul./ago. 2020  Epub 07-Ago-2020

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.abd.2020.02.004 

Correspondence

On variations in micrographic surgery and the use of horizontal histological sections in the evaluation of the surgical margin,☆☆

Anna Carolina Miolaa 
http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8926-734X

Hélio Amante Miota  * 
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2596-9294

Luis Fernando Figueiredo Kopkeb 
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3350-5887

aDepartment of Dermatology, Faculdade de Medicina de Botucatu, Universidade Estadual Paulista, Botucatu, SP, Brazil

bDepartment of Dermatology, Hospital Universitário, Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Florianópolis, SC, Brazil


Complete microscopic control of the excisional margins remains the most effective method for treating non-melanoma skin tumors. Since the original idea of chemosurgery was developed by Frederic Mohs, in the 1930s, there has been substantial development of techniques for incision, inclusion, and processing of histological specimens, sectionning techniques, histological markings, and evaluation of margins. This has allowed the performance of these procedures in an outpatient setting, reducing operational time, minimizing resection of healthy tissue adjacent to the neoplasm, and reducing the cost and number of stages of surgery.1,2

The fundamental difference between variations in micrographic surgery is the form of inspection of the involved surgical margin. Peripheral analysis techniques (e.g., Mohs surgery, Tübingen, the muffin technique) assess the presence of tumor cells in the hypothetical surgical border. Central analysis techniques (e.g., Munich), assess the entire neoplasia and its relationship with the actual surgical borders, based on the integral analysis of the excised tumor tissue sample.3

Portela et al. presented a technique of horizontal sectionning of the excised tissue, aiming to assess the margin compromise prior to the execution of the Mohs surgery.4 However, such an approach corresponds exactly to the Munich technique, described in 1995 and disseminated especially in Europe, but mentioned extensively in micrographic surgery articles, whose historical relevance cannot be disregarded.1-3

It should be noted that the authors make well-founded criticisms of the Mohs technique and perceive the benefits of margin control using horizontal sections, due to their experience with confocal microscopy, in addition to the emphasis on the vertical incision, which spares adjacent healthy tissue.

In fact, the modifications and advances in micrographic surgery have led to intrinsic differences in the main technical variations, which clearly favor their indications in specific situations, and whose understanding leads to the maximization of results by the micrographic surgeon.1-3 However, there is a lack of systematic studies (head-to-head) comparing the techniques regarding their characteristics, especially outcomes related to the surgical time, number of stages, and removal of healthy tissue. Moreover, the North American hegemony of the Mohs technique in both practice and publications has hindered dermatological science and the potential beneficiaries of the technical advances brought by the other techniques.5 Some particularities highlighted in the literature are listed in table 1.

Table 1 Comparison of the characteristics of the main variants of oncological surgery with microscopic control of the margins 

Mohs Tübingen Muffin Munich
Optimal tumor size <4 cm >2 cm <2 cm <2.5 cm
Favorable excision plane Flat or convex Flat or convex Flat or convex Any
Number of histological slidesa Intermediate Intermediate Lower Higher
Skin incision Oblique Vertical Vertical Vertical
Type of margin assessment Peripheral Peripheral Peripheral Central
Relationship of the neoplastic mass with the surgical margin Impossible Impossible Impossible Possible
Assessment of perineural invasion More difficult More difficult More difficult Easier
Resection of adjacent normal tissue Greaterb Lower Lower Lower

aConsidering an incision of the same size.

bIncision at 30º-45º.

Parallel to promoting diffusion of knowledge and research in the development of micrographic control techniques for oncological surgical margins, it is necessary to appreciate the historical merit of classically described techniques, such as the Munich technique.

Financial support

None declared.

How to cite this article: Miola AC, Miot HA, Kopke LFF. On variations of micrographic surgery and the use of horizontal histological sections in the evaluation of the surgical margin. An Bras Dermatol. 2020;95:545-6.

☆☆Study conducted at the Department of Dermatology, Faculdade de Medicina de Botucatu, Universidade Estadual Paulista, Botucatu, SP, Brazil.

References

1 Kopke LF, Konz B. Micrographic surgery. A current methodological assessment. Hautarzt. 1995;46:607-14. [ Links ]

2 Löser CR, Rompel R, Möhrle M, Häfner HM, Kunte C, Hassel J, et al. S1 guideline: microscopically controlled surgery (MCS). J Dtsch Dermatol Ges. 2015;13:942-51. [ Links ]

3 Kopke LFF, Konz B. The fundamental differences among the variations of micrografic surgery. An Bras Dermatol. 1994;69:505-10. [ Links ]

4 Portela PS, Teixeira DA, Machado CDAS, Pinhal MAS, Paschoal FM. Horizontal histological sections in the preliminary evaluation of basal cell carcinoma submitted to Mohs micrographic surgery. An Bras Dermatol. 2019;94:671-6. [ Links ]

5 Rapini RP. On the definition of Mohs surgery and how it determines appropriate surgical margins. Arch Dermatol. 1992;128:673-8. [ Links ]

Received: February 10, 2020; Accepted: February 14, 2020; Published: May 12, 2020

* Corresponding author. E-mail:heliomiot@gmail.com (H.A. Miot).

Authors' contributions

Anna Carolina Miola: Approval of the final version of the manuscript; drafting and editing of the manuscript; critical review of the literature; critical review of the manuscript.

Hélio Amante Miot: Approval of the final version of the manuscript; conception and planning of the study; critical review of the literature; critical review of the manuscript.

Luis Fernando Figueiredo Kopke: Approval of the final version of the manuscript; conception and planning of the study; drafting and editing of the manuscript; critical review of the literature; critical review of the manuscript.

Conflicts of interest

None declared.

Creative Commons License This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.