Table 7 Description of studies with an explicit comparison between perfusion and immersion fixation
From: Perfusion fixation in brain banking: a systematic review
Study | Design | Number of brains fixed | Time for procedure | Outcome | Result | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Perfusion | Immersion | Perfusion | Immersion | ||||
Adickes 1997 [1] | Crossover, within-brain | 4 | 4 | 5–6 h | 2 weeks | Subjective histology quality | Equal or superior tissue preservation with perfusion fixation compared with immersion fixation |
Beach 1987 [7] | Experimental, non-randomized | 2 | 2 | 1–8 days | 1–8 days | Subjective histology quality | More even distribution of staining in perfusion-fixed samples, while immersion fixed samples had a dense band of staining at the edges of the fixed tissue and pale regions in the interior |
Grinberg 2008 [34] | Experimental, non-randomized | 32 | 4 | Not reported | > 3 months | Subjective histology quality | More uniform penetration of fixative agent into all regions of the brain in perfusion-fixed samples, including deep regions such as the thalamus and basal ganglia |
Lyck 2008 [58] | Experimental, non-randomized | 32 | 5 | 1 day - 4 years | 1 day - 10 years | Long-term immunostaining | Better preservation of sensitive antigens (e.g., NeuN and CNPase) in perfusion-fixed specimens |
Sharma 2006 [79] | Experimental, randomized selection of brain tissue | 36 | 36 | 1–4 days | 3–4 weeks | Subjective histology quality | No significant difference in staining quality between perfusion and immersion fixation |