Worm‐like artifacts in exfoliative cytology

Martínez‐Girón, Rafael; González‐López, José Rafael; Esteban, J. Guillermo; García-Miralles, María Teresa; Alvarez-de-los-Heros, Carlos; Ribas-Barceló, Andrés

doi:10.1002/dc.20521

Cited by 4 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 8 publications

(7 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…[ 1 ] Polarization is a useful procedure to help recognize these foreign bodies since many are birefringent. [ 5 ] Many of the potential common and uncommon contaminants that are encountered in cytology practice are discussed hereunder.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Contaminants and mimickers in cytopathology

Nandyal

Bindu

et al. 2020

J Cytol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Context: Many contaminants are routinely encountered in cytopathology practice. However, because of lack of familiarity and experience with them, many are unnoticed, neglected, or confused with other structures of major relevance. Aims: The purpose of this study was to intentionally introduce contaminants into the smears and to provide distinctive morphological criteria required for the microscopist to identify them confidently to avoid possible confusion. Settings and Design: Prospective cross-sectional study. Methods and Material: This study included smears prepared from the buccal mucosa of healthy volunteers. Common contaminants were deliberately introduced into the smears, fixed using 90% ethanol, and stained with Hematoxylin and Eosin stain (H and E) and Papanicolaou stain (PAP). The study also included smears from leftover cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) and wet mount preparations. The morphology of these contaminants was studied and the results were tabulated. Statistical Analysis Used: Nil. Results: The vivid morphological appearance of these commonly encountered contaminants were described and many of these mimicked structures of major relevance. Conclusions: Contaminants and mimickers can make the evaluation of cytologic specimens challenging and may necessitate secondary review by another pathologist or further workup. Knowledge and familiarity of these commonly encountered extraneous substances will help to prevent misinterpretation.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…and internal (digestive or reproductive tract) noticeable anatomical structures are often vital in differentiating contaminants from real worms. [ 2 5 ]…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Contaminants and mimickers in cytopathology

Nandyal

Bindu

et al. 2020

J Cytol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…2B). Worms have both internal and external structures, such as an intestine and mouthparts, which differentiate them from root hair [2]. When the patient's tissue was carefully observed for the doubtful structures, an elongated central refractile core suggestive of a root hair was seen (Fig.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Root hair from plants and vegetable matter are commonly seen in inherently contaminated clinical samples such as stool [1] and sputum [2]. Sterile samples such as aseptically collected pus or tissues are free of such artifacts.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Plant Root Hair in Tap Water: A Potential Cause for Diagnostic Confusion

et al. 2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Plant root hairs are commonly found artifacts in parasitology specimens and may be confused with helminthes by an untrained eye. We report a case of brain tuberculoma where the tissue sample was contaminated with root hair derived from tap water; the presence of this root hair, which mimicked a larva, led to diagnostic confusion. Therefore, tap water should be considered a source of root hair and vegetable matter.

show abstract

“…[ 4 5 ] In addition, Curschmann's spirals have been also described as potential pseudoparasites in sputum smears. [ 6 ]…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%