Sysmex Hematology Analyzers

[kholshoe]

Hi all,

 

Wondering who out there is using Sysmex hematology analyzers!  We will be moving to the Sysmex XN Series analyzers sometime this year.  Currently working on presenting information for the capital budget - and sifting through the various options available.

 

Does anyone out there use the Celluvision? If so, would like to know your thoughts on it.  It is an expensive add-on...but seems interesting.

[Auntie-D]

I miss ours we now have seimens advia 2120i's and they are just a bag of spanners!!! You'll love them

[kholshoe]

Glad to hear you liked them!  Did you find they were down frequently, or not?  Did you use Cellavision with your setup?

[nziegler]

I have a Cellavision.  It has the potential to be a really useful tool.  If you really plan on getting one, there are a few MUST HAVES - and i cannot stress enough, MUST HAVE:

 

1. a slide-maker stainer - consistent slides and good stain is key to optimal use. i work in lab where there are 35 different techs making slides 35 different ways, and inconsistency is a problem. Stain precipitate from a dirty stainer is also a problem. Which brings down a minor rabbit trail:

     1a. Cellavision does NOT have a brain. It does NOT learn how to classify cells better the more you use   it.  Personally, i am ok with this, but i came into the project after the techs had already been told that this would be possible. This is why stain junk is a problem - i've concluded it just looks for dark purple-ish anything and tries to classify.

 

2. An efficient way to create barcoded labels that can go through the staining process. (Pretty sure a slide-maker stainer would cover you on this). I don't even want to tell you what we go through to get the slides labeled.  That said, a slide MUST have a barcode in order to be run. There is no way around it.

 

3. Middleware. I use SoftLab and currently don't have middleware. So in order to verify a diff from Cellavision involves careful manipulation of 2 separate interfaces. Let's just say the number of modified reports sky-rocketed when i put it into use and one shift all but refuses to use it.

 

There are some positives: the images are nice. And they can be magnified far beyond what you see in a scope. (which can also be bad if you have some "over-analyzers") You can also build a library of reference cells. So as you get patients with blasts, pros, myelos, plasma cells - you can add them to a reference library - so no more getting up and flipping through a reference book to try to find an image that matches yours. It does have the capability of remote viewing for pathologists - but costs $$$. It also has a competency software (but i haven't figured that out yet). It can do body fluids, but i haven't worked that up yet.

Negatives: only 1 image for red cell morphology. it is equivalent to 8 hpf, but if the image is taken in the wrong part of the slide (too far out, too far in) you have to slap it back on the scope. It also has a platelet module, but i haven't bothered to work it up. In my opinion platelet issues really need a good eyeball scanning of the slide on a scope.

 

Sorry if that was a bit rambling, but my facility has wasted a TON of money - because we bought far too many and did not have the supporting pieces to make workflow efficient.

[kholshoe]

Nziegler - thank you so much for your insight!  VERY helpful!  You can ramble anytime

 

We are currently looking at including the slide-maker-stainer with our setup.  However, I'm not sure we'll get the use out of Cellavision as it is intended.....

 

So glad you responded!

[rravkin@aol.com]

_{We use the Unicel DXH Slide Maker/ Stained along with the Cellivision for the reasons described by NZiegler.}