ABSTRACT
Bacteriology remained essentially manual for many years. After a partial automation for blood cultures, identifications and sensitivity testing, new technological developments including robotisation and digital pictures made it possible to open new ways. In the context of economic pression and need to increase the quality, automation offers multiple advantages concerning increase of productivity, standardization, traceability and decreasing of the delay to obtain the results. Moreover the use of digitalized pictures opens the way to tele-bacteriology, particularly useful when considering the merging of hospital laboratories because it makes it possible to geographically dissociate strict manipulation from the validation of the results and from the consultant activity of the microbiologist. The choice criteria of the equipment are detailed as well as the experience of the LHUB-ULB bacteriological laboratory which was automated at the time of merging of the Brussels public hospital laboratories and developed a conclusive experience of tele-bacteriology for the peripheral lab.
Subject(s)
Bacteriological Techniques/trends , Bacteriology/trends , Laboratories, Hospital/trends , Automation, Laboratory/instrumentation , Automation, Laboratory/methods , Bacteriological Techniques/methods , Bacteriological Techniques/standards , Clinical Laboratory Techniques/methods , Clinical Laboratory Techniques/trends , Humans , Laboratories, Hospital/organization & administration , Laboratories, Hospital/standards , Telemedicine/methods , Telemedicine/trendsABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Several clinical studies have evaluated the diagnostic efficiency of fecal elastase 1 (FE1) determination using monoclonal antibodies (ScheBo-Tech, Wettenberg, Germany). We report the results of the comparison of this method with a polyclonal based assay (BioServ AG, Rostock, Germany). METHODS: We collected single spot samples from two groups of patients. The group of adults included 13 healthy subjects (HS), 12 patients with non-pancreatic gastrointestinal disease (NPGD), 26 with chronic pancreatitis with presence of calcification (CCP) and 14 without calcification (NCP). The group of children included 17 cases of cystic fibrosis (CF) and 21 controls (CO). After a common extraction, both assays were performed as recommended by the manufacturers. RESULTS: Both tests showed a statistically significant difference between patients with normal pancreatic function and patients with pancreatic disorders. Neither showed a significant difference between HS and NPGD. CONCLUSIONS: Although a statistical difference was found between the two methods for the normal groups (HS and CO), both kits are suitable for the detection of severe pancreatic insufficiency either in adult patients or in children. However, caution should be taken in case of patients with liquid stool specimens.
