Hello again, I made a rookie mistake by not being more specific in my last
entry concerning the names of the special stains which I am looking for.
Let me be more specific concerning the pictures which demonstrate special
stains such as:for Connective tissue methods; Masson Trichrome,Weigert Van
Gieson, Verhoeff Van Gieson, Gomori's Aldehyde Fuchsin, Masson Fontana,
Phosphotungstic Acid Haematoxylin. For demonstrating carbohydrates: Periodic
Acid Schiff, Periodic Acid Methenamine Silver (PAMS), Martius
Yellow,Brilliant Crystal Scarlet, Soluble Blue, (MSB).Also Haemalum Phloxine
Saffron (HPS)
I know that this may sound redundant, but I really am in desperate need of
these pictures, If anyone has or knows which website may contain these
beautifull stains, Please let me know.
Once again, I thank u for your time
-----Original Message-----
From: HistoNet Server <HistoNet@Pathology.swmed.edu>
To: HistoNet Server <HistoNet@pathology.swmed.edu>
Date: Sunday, October 11, 1998 1:03 AM
Subject: Daily Digest


>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Date: 10 Oct 1998 00:48:05 -0500
>From: "J. A. Kiernan" <jkiernan@julian.uwo.ca>
>Subject: Re: Your failed attempted histonet defection
>
>
>On Fri, 9 Oct 1998, C***y H*******n wrote:
>
>> unsubscribe
>
> The usual slip is to spell it wrongly.
> You got it right but you put it in the wrong place.
>
> The sacred word UNSUBSCRIBE has to go in the Subject line
> of your email. Be careful not to write unsuscribe or
> unscribe or unsusribe, or the other things we see so
> often.
>
> It's an awful word to type, and just one wrong letter
> results in the whole group knowing all about your bungled
> attempt at desertion!
>                        John Kiernan
>                        London, Canada.
>
>
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Date: 10 Oct 1998 01:00:08 -0500
>From: "J. A. Kiernan" <jkiernan@julian.uwo.ca>
>Subject: Amyloid can be obscure. Re: congo red
>
>On Fri, 9 Oct 1998, Bryan Llewellyn wrote:
>
>> I have run into this on a few occasions.  It is in the nature of amyloid
to
>> be variable in staining.  If you really must prove its presence, then cut
>> some of the tissue out of the block, dewax it and send it for EM.
Although
>> the ultrastructural morphology will be the pits, the very characteristic
>> structure of amyloid is retained.  We did this on a case a few years ago,
>> when the only stain that demonstrated it was thioflavin T.  It did turn
out
>> to be amyloid.
>                 Bryan Llewellyn
>
>  This is a real HistoNet gem!
>                               John Kiernan
>                               London, further E. in Canada.
>
>
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Date: 10 Oct 1998 07:25:49 -0500
>From: "Yvan Lindekens" <yvan.lindekens@skynet.be>
>Subject: Re: "xylene AND alcohol substitude" & "rabbit spleen in
formaldehyde
>37%"
>
>hi all,
>
>ETOH and xylene can be ommitted in the embedding process (paraffin) by the
>use of 2-propanol. This calls for dehydration in 2-propanol at room
>temperature, 2-propanol at 50#161#C, 2-propanol-paraplast mixture (1/1 v/v)
at
>50#161#C and finally, normal embedding in Paraplast.
>
>I use this method all the time (histology and plant anatomy); It works very
>well... I have tried it with several other paraffin's (Paraplast-plus,
>"paraffin fur die histologie", Merck and even with a mixture of household
>paraffin, mp. 52#161#C  and purified biewax (95/5 w/w). The results were
OK,
>sometimes even better compared to the results obtained by "classical
>techniques". Cutting artefacts are far less, due to the abcense of the
>hardening effect of xylene (benzene, toluene)...
>(sections 4-12um, RT= 16#161#C, with manualy operated rotary microtome and
>c-type knive: as an amateur, I don't believe in disposable blades: grinding
>and polishing knives is part of the fun).
>
>One drawback: dehydration trough 2-propanol is slower than dehydration
>trough ETOH...
>
>The method is described in Bock, P.: "Romeis' Mikroskopische Technik",
>1989, Urban&Schwarzenberg, ISBN: 3-541-11227-1.
>
>It's a modification of an old technique (Dietrich, 1929; Doxtader, 1948)
>and I think (but I'm not sure) that even Bolles Lee mentioned it in one of
>the first editions of "The Microtomist's vademecum"... (If my dear friend x
>would be so kind to, finally, return my copy? Thanks).
>___________________________________________________________
>There was a messages about rabbit spleen, "par accident" fixed in
>formaldehyde 37% (Mrs. Mary Kay Olson). Embarrasing (know it, been
>there...).
>
>Perhaps you could give the 2-propanol-paraplast technique a try instead of
>a regular ETOH-xylene-parrafin run: tissue hardening will be less and
>perhaps it will be possible to cut usable sections... Cutting on a sliding
>microtome (instead of a rotary-) could help too...
>
>Mr. Paul Millikin said in his response: "...spleens are VERY hard to fix
>WELL... ...They tend to be so full of RBC that they behave like a thrombus
>or an embolus... When simply thrown intact into an immersion fixative, the
>outer, subcapsular 2-3 mm tends to fix, but the rest is usually rotten...
>... We've been looking at rotten, autolyzed tissue for too long...
>...Slicing (breadloafing) the specimen every 2-3 mm before immersion causes
>considerable improvement, and should be a must for everyone interested in
>spleens".
>
>This is certainly true... I always slice spleen (and other hard to fix
>tissues as lung etc...) in slices about 2-3 mm thick. This can easily be
>done with a sharp razor, a long razor blade or a large dissecting knive (no
>scalpel: the blade is too "short"...) and without using pressure.
>Even then, adequate fixation isn't always guaranteed when using NBF... I
>believe it's better to fix in an alcoholic Bouin formulation
>(Duboscq-Brasil, Lang, Rossman...)(depending on the purpose of the
>preparations).
>I know that there are conflicting opinions regarding the fixation of spleen
>in Bouin, but if I have to choose between techniques that "are not generaly
>accepted" and making slides of "rotten, autolyzed tissue"...
>
>Yvan Lindekens.
>
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Date: 10 Oct 1998 10:42:32 -0500
>From: "Alexander Nader" <anader@teleweb.at>
>Subject: Re: Mercury poisoning tissue stain?
>
>On Thu, 08 Oct 1998 19:00:13 -0700, A. Mark Briones wrote:
>
>>Has anyone been able to demonstrate tissue deposition in acute, possibly
>>chronic mercury poisoning cases? Does anyone have a good tissue stain for
>>mercury deposits, our pathologist would like to demonstrate deposition if
it
>>can be stained? Kidney? Liver? Brain?  Are there any tissues in anyone's
>>"banks" that has demonstrated positive mercury staining so I could
validate
>>any finding on this unfortunate case?  Thanks.
>
>what about back-scattered electron imgaging? We do this as element analysis
to
>show the content of Ca,
>Fluor in bone. I' ll ask my REM technician on monday if it is possible with
>mercury too.
>
>
>
>
> Dr. Alexander Nader
>            Rossauer Laende 35a/32
>      A-1090 WIEN
>
>    anader@teleweb.at
>
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Date: 10 Oct 1998 13:17:59 -0500
>From: Priscilla <pdelvent@wyoming.com>
>Subject: Charges for multiple tissues
>
>Hi everyone in Histo Land--We are having a discussion about making a
>special charge for specimens that arrive in multiple for processing.
>Things like more than one skin specimen, colon bxs, prostate needle bxs,
>etc.  In the past I have always had a charge of XXX multiple where I lower
>the price of the single specimen and then times it the number of specimens
>that have been removed and called it skin multiple or prostate multiple or
>colon multiple.  These would all be submitted in separate containers and
>thusly separate cassettes.  The colon bxs especially can amount to more
>dollars charge than to remove the whole colon if the single specimen charge
>would be multiplied times the number of sites bxs.
>
>How do you handle these charges?
>
>Also in researching these charges by calling other hospitals, I came across
>another interesting method of charging.  I have found where even if a
>bilateral specimen such as vas deferens or fallopian tubes were submitted
>in the same container  (Yes, I too, hope that there is a suture on the
>right sided specimen to denote which it is) that the charge was x two even
>though it was submitted in the same container.  Interestingly enough, I
>have always submitted only one charge for a bilateral fallopian tube or vas
>deferens, even if they were submitted in separate containers (which I hope
>they were)
>
>Also in the case of uterus, fallopian tubes and ovaries, I found where
>there were three charges even though the specimen was submitted in one
>container.  For Tonsils and Adenoids, I found places charging 3 charges for
>this type of specimen.  I have always charged only one charge for either
>both tonsils or tonsils and adenoids.
>
>Either I have been very stupid or just not up to date on charging
>practices.  I'm sure our patients hope that I don't become too informed as
>changing the way I've been charging will make a big impact on our customers
>bills.
>
>Does any one know of rules for this?  I always thought that anything sent
>down in a separate container needed a separate charge, except in the case
>of bilateral specimens such as those mentioned above, and I thought that
>T&A's were submitted separately just so the specimen could be identified as
>to the proper side,  I also thought that UTO's were considered one
>specimen.  I can see where a uterus sent separately from the ovaries could
>justify a separate charge, especially if one ovary was possibly neoplastic
>or the uterus was and the ovaries benign.  Of course we don't know until
>the microscopic, do we?
>
>I look forward to being enlightened by this group.  Please be kind to me!!
>I'm usually on top of these things, but coding workshops usually are for
>the total billing and I don't get sent to them if they don't concentrate on
>just Pathology.
>
>Priscilla in Central Wyoming
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Date: 10 Oct 1998 16:21:17 -0500
>From: Michelle McCafferty <mmccaff@mbl.edu>
>Subject: Thank you
>
>
> Thank you to every one who explained what the Red Green Show is
>all about.  Boston area PBS doesn't have it listed on Saturday night so I
>guess I'll have to check the other nights of the week.  Perhaps Boston
>isn't broadcasting the show at all!  Sounds like that would be a pity.
>
> Michelle
>
>
>
>Michelle McCafferty
>Marine Biological Laboratory
>7 MBL Street
>Woods Hole, MA 02543-1015
>
>
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Date: 10 Oct 1998 18:01:00 -0500
>From: swansong <swansong@videotron.ca>
>Subject: Re: subscribe digest
>
>
>- -----Original Message-----
>From: HistoNet Server <HistoNet@Pathology.swmed.edu>
>To: swansong <swansong@videotron.ca>
>Date: Friday, October 09, 1998 7:42 PM
>
>
>>Please do not send ENCLOSURES!!!!!!
>>
>
>
>
>Here are the messages received yesterday!
>