Tucker J A
Department of Pathology, University of South Alabama, Mobile 36617, USA.
Ultrastruct Pathol. 2000 Nov-Dec;24(6):383-9. doi: 10.1080/019131200750060041.
For decades, transmission electron microscopy has played a valuable diagnostic role in surgical pathology. The continuing importance of electron microscopy, however, can be debated, given the major advances that have occurred in immunohistochemistry and other techniques. Electron microscopy retains excellent educational potential and broad research applicability, and it continues to be a necessity for the evaluation of a small subset of surgical pathology cases, such as renal biopsies and cilia specimens. The real controversy, then, centers on the contribution of electron microscopy in the evaluation of neoplasms. The opinion of many experts indicates that electron microscopy is still vital in the diagnostic assessment of some neoplasms, and that both electron microscopy and immunohistochemistry are more powerful when viewed as complementary rather than competitive techniques. For electron microscopy to be used to its potential, however, electron microscopists must function effectively as consultants. When optimally applied, electron microscopy remains an essential diagnostic tool.
