A comparative analysis of three distinct rehydrating solutions for addressing liver tissue desiccation resulting from dehydration failure

Background The tissue dehydration process is an important step in pathology specimen preparation. Dehydration failure, caused by equipment malfunction, incorrect program settings, or operator error, is a recognized problem in laboratory practice and can compromise the quality of hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) slides, thereby hindering subsequent pathological diagnosis. Common ad hoc responses include stepwise rehydration or short-term immersion in various buffers. However, information on repairing over-desiccated specimens is limited, and there is little systematic evidence comparing different rehydration approaches. We evaluated three rehydration solutions for restoring tissue morphology and H&E staining quality after over-desiccation, using standardized morphological scoring to inform evidence-based guidance for handling of dehydration incidents in diagnostic histopathology. Methods Three common rehydrating solutions were compared. After a 24-hour period of routine fixation by 10% neutral buffered formalin, the liver specimens were manually dehydrated with anhydrous ethanol and left to air dry for eight hours. The specimens were then immersed in three distinct rehydrating solutions for either 12 hours or 24 hours. After the rehydration, dehydration, and embedding processes, the specimens were sectioned and stained. Then, they were observed under a microscope, and a quantitative assessment of nuclear morphology was performed to evaluate the recovery effects of the three repair solutions. Results The dried liver tissues were restored in all specimens soaked in one of the three repair solutions, with the 24-hour group demonstrating superior results compared to the 12-hour group. Gordon’s solution exhibited the most pronounced repair effect, while Sandison’s solution and Formol-Glycerol solution also demonstrated restorative effects, albeit with residual issues. Discussion The results indicated that, regardless of restorative solution used, the tissues exhibited some degree of recovery; however, the restoration of their morphology effects was not the same. The 24-hour group showed a superior level of tissue repair compared to the 12-hour group. Of the three solutions, Gordon’s solution after 24-hour immersion was the most effective at promoting tissue repair.