Is it Time to Migrate to Liquid Chromatography Automated Platforms in the Clinical Laboratory? A Brief Point of View.

Liquid chromatography coupled to mass spectrometry already started to surpass the major drawbacks in terms of sensitivity, specificity and cross-reactivity that some analytical methods used in the clinical laboratory exhibit. This hyphenated technique is already preferred for specific applications while finding its own place in the clinical laboratory setting. However, large-scale usage, high-throughput analysis and lack of automation emerge as shortcomings that liquid chromatography coupled to mass spectrometry still has to overrun in order to be used on a larger scale in the clinical laboratory. The aim of this review article is to point out the present-day position of the liquid chromatography coupled to mass spectrometry technique while trying to understand how this analytical method relates to the basic working framework of the clinical laboratory. This paper offers insights about the main regulation and traceability criteria that this coupling method has to align and comply to, automation and standardization issues and finally the critical steps in sample preparation workflows all related to the high-throughput analysis framework. Further steps are to be made toward automation, speed and easy-to-use concept; however, the current technological and quality premises are favorable for chromatographic coupled to mass spectral methods.

Retinal Nerve Fibre Layer Thickness Change After CO2 Laser-Assisted Deep Sclerectomy Surgery.

PURPOSE: The goal of our study was to investigate changes in intraocular pressure (IOP), best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), and retinal nerve fibre layer thickness (RNFLT) after CO2 laser-assisted deep sclerectomy (CLASS). METHODS: We carried out uncomplicated CLASS surgeries and a 12-month follow-up on 22 open-angle glaucomatous (OAG) eyes of 22 patients. IOP, BCVA, and RNFLT with spectral-domain optical coherence tomography (SD OCT) were recorded before and 1, 3, 6, 12 months after surgery. RESULTS: Mean age of patients was 68.1 years. IOP decreased from preoperative 28.45±5.99 SD mmHg (mean±standard deviation) to 15.09±2.40 mmHg (p=0.00039) at 12 months after surgery. BCVA-change from preoperative 0.34±0.38 SD (LogMAR) to 0.37±0.41 SD (LogMAR) was not significant (p=0.2456). RNFLT-change from preoperative 60.50±18.15µm to 59.63±17.52 µm at 12 months postoperatively was not significant (p=0.056). Qualified success rate of CLASS surgery was 72.7%, whereas complete success rate was 64% at 1 year postoperatively. CONCLUSION: Successful CLASS surgery efficiently reduced IOP. At postoperative 12 months, RNFLT and BCVA were not reduced significantly. There was no significant glaucomatous progression after surgery encountered in respect of investigated parameters.

The comparative study of two recently developed A-scan devices: determination of central corneal thickness, anterior chamber depth and axial length.

PURPOSE: The clinical use and comparison of two recently developed A-scan ultrasound devices. METHODS: The same investigator determined central corneal thickness (CCT), anterior chamber depth (ACD) and axial length (AL) with an OcuScan RxP (Alcon, Forth Worth, Texas, USA) and an AL-2000 (Tomey, Erlangen, Germany) ultrasound device in 80 eyes of 40 patients. The mean patient age was 63.72 years [standard deviation (SD) 18.92]. The patients did not suffer from any systemic or eye disease affecting the anterior and posterior segments of the eye, and their refractive error (spherical and astigmatic) did not exceed +/- 3.0 dioptres. RESULTS: The value of the CCT was 541.55 (SD 34.97) microm with the OcuScan RxP, and 547.46 (SD 35.70) microm with the AL-2000 device (P < 0.001). With respect to the ACD and AL, significantly lower values were obtained with the AL-2000 instrument (P < 0.001). The ACD was 2.92 (SD 0.48) mm with the AL-2000 and 3.07 (SD 0.47) mm with the OcuScan RxP device. The AL was 22.67 (SD 0.84) mm with the AL-2000 and 22.81 (SD 0.87) mm with the OcuScan RxP instrument. However, a positive and significant correlation could be demonstrated between the devices (r = 0.88 CCT, r = 0.86 ACD and r = 0.91 AL; P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The instruments are reliable in clinical use; however, statistically significant differences were found between the devices. During patient follow-up, the devices cannot simply be used interchangeably.