This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in JAMA  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

DWIGHT K. OXLEY, MD
Physician's Reference Laboratory Kansas City, Mo

JAMA. 1985;253(4):511.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

To the Editor.—

As a pathologist, I believe I understand some of the sentiments expressed by Dr Kindschi¹ regarding the use of frozen sections in the practice of surgery and surgical pathology. Kindschi, however, makes no mention of the fundamental medical issue—intraoperative consultations by pathologists. Pathologists who make themselves available for consultations during surgery perform a very valuable patient care function and also participate in making the decision as to whether a frozen section is indicated. I am told that there are hospitals where pathologists merely receive pieces of tissue in the laboratory, perform frozen sections, and communicate their findings via an intercom. Such a deplorable practice in which effective surgeon-to-pathologist communication is blocked obviously fosters the abuse of frozen sections.

Kindschi mentions a study in which 42% of frozen sections were unnecessary. Interestingly, in our practice approximately 30% to 40% of intraoperative consultations do not involve the performance . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?