Urinary Cytology: The DxU-850 Iris automaton versus Microscopic Examination
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.62438/tunismed.v102i12.5143Keywords:
automation, DxU 850 Iris, microscopic examination, urinary cytologyAbstract
Introduction: The use of urine cytobacteriological examination is a common and essential practice in medicine which helps guide therapeutic management in case of urinary tract infection. The cytological examination of urine samples can be done using the manual (microscopic) or automated technique. The automated approach, which involves the use of artificial intelligence, is faster, more reliable, and more efficient for laboratories.
Aim: This work aims to evaluate the performance of the DxU-850 Iris automate by comparing it to the microscopic method.
Methods: Using a four-month prospective study from May to August 2023, we analyzed urine samples received during this period by the Microbiology laboratory of Mohammed VI University Hospital in Oujda. Strict quality standards were respected when obtaining the results. Several elements were analyzed, and various parameters calculated to evaluate the performance of this automaton.
Results: The present study investigated 1000 CBEU samples, mainly from outpatient clinics (46.34%) and emergency departments (21.72%). Most patients were males (50.58%) and asymptomatic (72.9%). The samples’ culture showed varied results: concordance between the results of automaton and microscopic count was satisfactory except for crystals and yeasts in turbid samples.
Conclusion: Automation has advantages like speed, traceability, error reduction, and time optimization. The results reveal a satisfactory concordance between the two methods despite discordances occurring mainly with crystals and yeasts, especially in turbid urine samples. The DxU-850 Iris automaton is an effective way to screen for urinary tract infections. We recommend that automated and manual techniques be considered complementary.
Downloads
References
García-Coca M, Gadea I, Esteban J. Relationship between conventional culture and flow cytometry for the diagnosis of urinary tract infection. J Microbiol Methods 2017;137:14–8.
Mancuso, Giuseppe, et al. « Infections des voies urinaires : le scénario actuel et les perspectives d'avenir. » Pathogens 12.4 (2023) : 623.
Caron, F., et al. "Practice guidelines for the management of adult community-acquired urinary tract infections." Med Mal Infect 48.5 (2018): 327-358.
Gessoni G, Saccani G, Valverde S, Manoni F, Caputo M. Does flow cytometry have a role in preliminary differentiation between urinary tract infections sustained by gram positive and gram negative bacteria? An Italian polycentric study. Clin Chim Acta 2015;440:152–6.
Íñigo M, Coello A, Fernández-Rivas G, Carrasco M, Marcó C, Fernández A, et al. Evaluation of the SediMax automated microscopy sediment analyzer and the Sysmex UF-1000i flow cytometer as screening tools to rule out negative urinary tract infections. Clin Chim Acta 2016;456:31–5.
Twizeyimana E. Automates et uroculture: la cytologie urinaire. Rev Francoph Des Lab 2016;2016:25–33.
March-Rosselló GA, Gutiérrez-Rodríguez MP, Simarro-Grande M, Orduña-Domingo A, Bratos-Pérez MÁ. Evaluación del analizador de orinas Sysmex UF-1000i como método de cribado en el diagnóstico de la infección del tracto urinario. Rev Del Lab Clínico 2016;9:3–8.
Sánchez-Mora C, Acevedo D, Porres MA, Chaqués AM, Zapardiel J, Gallego-Cabrera A, et al. Comparison of automated devices UX-2000 and SediMAX/AutionMax for urine samples screening: a multicenter Spanish study. Clin Biochem 2017;50:714–8.
Fabbro C, Darolles J, Rault J-P. Évaluation des performances de l’automate d’analyse urinaire UF-1000i®. Ann. Biol. Clin. (Paris)., vol. 69, 2011, p. 431–9.
Shang Y-J, Wang Q-Q, Zhang J-R, Xu Y-L, Zhang W-W, Chen Y, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of flow cytometry in urinary tract infection screening. Clin Chim Acta 2013;424:90–5.
Manoni F, Tinello A, Fornasiero L, Hoffer P, Temporin V, Valverde S, et al. Urine particle evaluation: a comparison between the UF-1000i and quantitative microscopy. Clin Chem Lab Med 2010;48:1107–11.
de Frutos-Serna M, Asensio-Calle ML, Haro-Pérez AM, Blázquez-de Castro AM, Gutiérrez-Zufiaurre MN, Iglesias-García J. Evaluación del citómetro UF-1000i como método de cribado en el diagnóstico de infecciones del tracto urinario. Enferm Infecc Microbiol Clin 2014;32:147–51.
SFM FS de M. Rémic: Réferenciel en microbiologie médicale. 2022.
Coulter B. Manuel automate DxU-850 Iris. California: n.d.
Maleb A, Sebbar E-H, Lahlou Y Ben, Frikh M, Mikou KA, Lemnouer A, et al. Cytologie urinaire: UF-1000i versus examen microscopique, dans des conditions réelles d’exercice d’un laboratoire de microbiologie. IRBM News 2017;38:150–4.
Boonen KJM, Koldewijn EL, Arents NLA, Raaymakers PAM, Scharnhorst V. Urine flow cytometry as a primary screening method to exclude urinary tract infections. World J Urol 2013;31:547–51.
De Rosa R, Grosso S, Bruschetta G, Avolio M, Stano P, Modolo ML, et al. Evaluation of the Sysmex UF1000i flow cytometer for ruling out bacterial urinary tract infection. Clin Chim Acta 2010;411:1137–42.
Dewulf G, Harrois D, Mazars E, Cattoen C, Canis F. Évaluation des performances de l’automate de cytologie urinaire Iris iQ® 200 ELITE et comparaison avec la méthode manuelle microscopique. Pathol Biol 2011;59:264–8.
Additional Files
Published
Issue
Section
Categories
License
Copyright (c) 2024 La Tunisie Médicale
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
