[Histonet] Standardized Microtomes

[Amos Brooks]

Sorry Rene,
     I absolutly disagree with that. The exact opposite: *Not* modifying the
angle of your block holder to suit the block, is not good practice. You are
bound to loose tissue when cutting archived blocks, or blocks from other
labs or even slight variations within your own lab. If you don't adapt to
the blockyou are cutting. Without modifying the angle of the holder, one has
2 choices: Just cut thru it (refacing) or re-embedding and thereby needing
to re-trim. Both scenerios will loose tissue.
     Often I have cut a freshly embedded block where the cassette didn't sit
perfectly flat on the mold, otherwise the embedding was perfect. (Often due
to poorly dissected tissue with high points). This results in an angle that
is slightly askew. Adjusting the block holder is much faster than
re-embedding the block. If it is done properly you can actually modify the
block angle without ever cutting any tissue even on a previously cut block.

We're going to have to disagree on this,
Amos

On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 9:14 AM, Rene J Buesa <rjbuesa <@t> yahoo.com> wrote:

> All in all the practice of "changing the angle to match the block you have
> to recut as needed" is not a good practice.
> During it you could end loosing tissue when trying to "build" a new flat
> surface from a block that was originally cut at a different angle, while
> "sculping" the new surface.
> The best practice is to have all the microtomes cutting at the same angle
> and try to convince those HTs that say that "I have always cut with this
> angle" that they are flat wrong and a general angle can be good for the
> majority of blocks.
> René J.
>