Plastic vs Glass test tubes

[melvolny]

I've seen alot of information about going to plastic vaccutainer tubes for specimens. But I find nothing about the testing in glass test tubes. Why do we use them? Can we use plastic? Do we want to use plastic? These are questions that have been brought to me.

My gut reaction was "we've always used glass tubes" - but I realized that is not the appropriate response.

One of our techs cut herself on a glass tube the other day, so now the Risk dept wants to know why we aren't using plastic.

We use gel for everything we can, but the tube is our backup right now.

Does anyone have any appropriate responses to the above questions?

Thanks for being there.

Melissa

[Malcolm Needs ☆]

Well, many years ago, I know that there was a paper about the static of plastic tubes adsorbing protein onto their surface, and, of course, antibodies are proteins, so, for example, a weak anti-Jka could stick to the tube, rather than the red cells and so would not be detected. However, I think I am correct in saying that this has largely been overcome.

One thing that I would say though is that I have seen far worse cuts (and more painful cuts) caused by broken plastic tubes than I ever have with broken glass tubes.

[melvolny]

Thank You Malcolm - I knew I could count on you for a reply.

Melissa

[Deny Morlino]

My recollection of the reason is the same as Malcolm's. We have been using plastic tubes for both collection and tube method testing for several years now (I believe about 6 years actually). One thing we discovered when switching to plastic is that the spin times for testing will need to be reduced a bit (we found about 30%) as compared to times for glass tubes. If the same time is used, the cells buttons are VERY difficult to roll off. Other than that we have not experienced any real difference. We do not experience the low humidity some of the southwestern states do so I cannot speak to performance in a low humidity environment. Hope this helps.

[melvolny]

Deny, did you do any validation or comparison testing before implementing? Would I have to? Is plastic less costly than glass?

Thanks for your insight

Melissa

[EDibble]

My experience with plastic tubes is that they can be harder to see through. I can't imagine trying to read AHG reactions through plastic.

[Deny Morlino]

We did perform a validation study prior to switching to plastic. The plastic we use is a polystyrene tube. It is very clear making reaction interpretation the same as using glass. When we switched the price for the glass and plastic was about the same. I have not looked at pricing since we made the switch.

[Sarah Dickerson]

What did the techs do to break plastic tubes?

Sarah

[adiescast]

We use plastic collection tubes, but glass test tubes. I have not tried the clearer plastics, but you really could not see well through the older plastics. We have not had any problems with the plastic collection tubes that I am aware of.

[Malcolm Needs ☆]

What did the techs do to break plastic tubes?

Sarah

Like Julie Mallory, I am talking of test tubes, rather than collection tubes, and these had been damaged in transit, rather than by the Biomedical Scientists. However, the Biomedical Scientists were damaged when they put their hands in the box (which did not appear damaged) to get the tubes out.

[Steven Jeff]

There is a letter published in The April 2011 edition of Transfusion Medicine 'A comparison between different glass and plastic tubes regarding the detection of anti-Fya’ written by C. Lobeer & B. Diedrich from Sweden. It is a limited study, but they found no statistical difference between PET (polyethylene terephthalate) and glass tubes using a LISS-IAT technique in the detection of anti-Fya. Personally I just prefer glass tubes.

Steve