HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in Web of Science Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Web of Science (12) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Ziebig, R. Articles by Sinha, P. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Ziebig, R. Articles by Sinha, P. Related Collections Hematology

Leukocyte Counts in Cerebrospinal Fluid with the Automated Hematology Analyzer CellDyn 3500 and the Urine Flow Cytometer UF-100

¹ Institut für Laboratoriumsmedizin und Pathobiochemie, Universitätsklinikum Charité, Campus Charité Mitte, Medizinische Fakultät der Humboldt Universität zu Berlin, Schumannstrasse 20-21, 10117 Berlin, Germany.
^a Author for correspondence. Fax 49-030-2802-8422; e-mail reinhard.ziebig{at}charite.de

Background: The counting of leukocytes and erythrocytes in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) is still performed microscopically, e.g., using a chamber in most laboratories. This requires sufficient practical experience, is time-consuming, and may constitute a problem in emergency diagnostics. Specific automated systems for CSF cell counting are not available at present.

Methods: We tested the hematology analyzer CellDyn 3500 (CD) and the urine flow cytometer UF-100 (UF), which are not designed for CSF analysis. We studied >104 samples with both analyzers, and the counts obtained were compared with the reference method (Fuchs-Rosenthal chamber).

Results: Good linearity in the medically relevant range of 15 x 10⁶ to 1000 x 10⁶ leukocytes/L and a high degree of within-run accuracy were seen for both analyzers. Cell counting on the UF was excellent, especially when low cell counts were encountered (CV, 4.9% compared with 28% observed for the CD). Method comparison showed that identical results could be detected for a majority of the count pairs. For a few samples, there was a discrepancy between the results from the analyzers and the counting chamber. In most cases, these were CSF samples containing a high proportion of lymphocytes. For these samples, the CD result led to a false-positive high leukocyte count, and on the UF these cells were not allocated to the leukocyte population, thus leading to false-negative counts.

Conclusions: Both analyzers should not be used for CSF cell counting in all cases at present. However, once the technical and software problems have been solved, routine use of the two analyzers for CSF analysis should be seriously contemplated.

The following articles in journals at HighWire Press have cited this article:

				B. D. Conner, Y. C. G. Lee, P. Branca, J. T. Rogers, R. M. Rodriguez, and R. W. Light Variations in Pleural Fluid WBC Count and Differential Counts With Different Sample Containers and Different Methods Chest, April 1, 2003; 123(4): 1181 - 1187. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. T. Van Acker, J. R. Delanghe, M. R. Langlois, Y. E. Taes, M. L. De Buyzere, and A. G. Verstraete Automated Flow Cytometric Analysis of Cerebrospinal Fluid Clin. Chem., March 1, 2001; 47(3): 556 - 560. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]