URINALYSIS UNDER THE MICROSCOPE: FAST, CHEAP AND COMMON BUT STILL RELEVANT

  • V. SARBU “Victor Babes” University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Timisoa
  • Ielmina DOMILESCU “Victor Babes” University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Timisoara
  • Iulia BAGIU “Victor Babes” University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Timisoara
  • Ana LASCU “Victor Babes” University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Timisoara
  • Elena SARBU “Victor Babes” University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Timisoara
  • Dorina DUGAESESCU “Victor Babes” University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Timisoara
  • Cristina GLUSOVSCHI “Victor Babes” University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Timisoara
  • R. BAGIU “Victor Babes” University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Timisoara

Abstract

Aim: The complete urine examination consisting of the analysis on the strip and the manual microscopic examination is one of the most important and used tests in current medical practice. The purpose of this study was to compare the efficiency of the strip vs the microscopy, but also the results obtained from the hospital compared to those from the ambulatory. Material and methods: The present study is a retrospective study conducted on a batch of 103 patients (53 hospitalized, 50 outpatient) between July and August 2019, with samples processed in the Clinical Laboratory of Medical Analyses of the Clinical Emergency Hospital for Children “Louis Țurcanu” Timișoara. Of the 103 patients, 63 (61.2%) were female, while 40 (38.8%) were male. Results: The red blood cells (RBCs) reading with the help of the strips and the bio-analyzer revealed negative results in 85.4% of the samples, while the microscopic examination revealed only 59.2% negative results. The same trend could also be observed in the case of leukocytes: 81.6% negative results on the strip, 20.4% results negative on microscopic examination. The p values for both examinations were <0.0001. Comparing hospital patients and outpatients, 5 entities (epithelia, bacteria, leukocytes, RBCs, and salts) were chosen, which were then divided by frequency (absent, very rare, rare, relatively common, common, numerous and deposit). Percentage values between the two groups were similar. ANOVA tests revealed the no difference either, p values being over 0.9277 when considering the absent values and over 0.1956 when excluding absent values. Conclusions: The difference between strip and microscope analyses for RBCs and leukocytes has proved to be statistically significant. No major percentage differences were identified between hospital and ambulatory for the number of positive samples for the epithelial variables, salts, leukocytes, RBCs, or bacteria.

Author Biographies

V. SARBU, “Victor Babes” University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Timisoa

Faculty of Medicine
Department of Microbiology XIV

Ielmina DOMILESCU, “Victor Babes” University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Timisoara

Faculty of Medicine
Department of Microbiology XIV

Iulia BAGIU, “Victor Babes” University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Timisoara

Faculty of Medicine
Department of Microbiology XIV

Ana LASCU, “Victor Babes” University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Timisoara

Faculty of Medicine
Department of Functional Sciences III

Elena SARBU, “Victor Babes” University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Timisoara

Faculty of Medicine
Department of Cardiology VI

Dorina DUGAESESCU, “Victor Babes” University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Timisoara

Faculty of Medicine
Department of Microbiology XIV

Cristina GLUSOVSCHI, “Victor Babes” University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Timisoara

Faculty of Medicine
Department of Internal Medicine II

R. BAGIU, “Victor Babes” University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Timisoara

Faculty of Medicine
Department of Microbiology XIV

References

1. Stein R, Dogan HS, Hoebeke P, et al. European Association of Urology; European Society for Pediatric Urology. Urinary tract infections in children: EAU/ESPU guidelines. Eur Urol 2015; 67: 546- 558.
2. Wilson LA. Urinalysis. Nursing Standard 2005; 19(35): 51- 54.
3. Mori R, Yonemoto N, Fitzgerald A, Tullus K, Verrier-Jones K, Lakhanpaul M. Diagnostic performance of urine dipstick testing in children with suspected UTI: a systematic review of relationship with age and comparison with microscopy. Acta Paediatrica 2010; 99(4): 581-584.
4. Barbeito García A, Sampayo Montenegro A. Using urinary strips. Rev Enferm 2015; 38(10): 10-16.
5. ***European Confederation of Laboratory Medicine European urinalysis guidelines. Scand J Clin Lab Invest Suppl 2000; 231 :1- 86.
6. David VL, Cerbu S, Haragus H, et al. Costal cartilages do not overgrow in patients with Pectus Escavatum. Med Princ and Practice 2016; 25(6); 533-538.
7. Maduemem KE, Diaz Rodriguez Y, Fraser B. How Sensitive are Dipstick Urinalysis and Microscopy in Making Diagnosis of Urinary Tract Infection in Children? Int J Prev Med 2019; 10: 62-66.
8. İnce F, Ellidağ H, Koseoğlu M, Şimşek N, Yalçın H, Zengin M. The comparison of automated urine analyzers with manual microscopic examination for urinalysis automated urine analyzers and manual urinalysis. Practical Laboratory Medicine 2016; 5: 14-20.
9. Yüksel H, Kiliç E, Ekinci A, Evliyaoğlu O. Comparison of Fully Automated Urine Sediment Analyzers H800-FUS100 and Labumat-Urised with Manual Microscopy. J of Clinic Lab Anal. 2013; 27(4): 312-316.
10. Petrovici C G., Dorobăț C, Matei M, Teodor A, Luca V, Miftode E. Aspects of the antimicrobial resistence profile in infections with Escherichia Coli and Klebsiella Pneumoniae in diabetic patients. Rev Med Chir Soc Med Nat Iaşi 2011; 115(3): 769-775.
11. Bagiu I, Putnoky S, Tuta-Sas I, et al. Manifestations of Self-Harm in Relation with Binge Drinking To Students From Timis County, Romania. Rev Med Chir Soc Med Nat Iaşi 2015; 119(4): 1106-1112.
12. Tuta-Sas I, Banu A, Nicolae N, et al. Particularities of the Level of Physical Activity Performed by Adolescents. Rev Chimie 2018; 69(3); 717-719.
13. Nemes D, Catan L, Poenaru DV, et al. Life quality in patients with type III ankylosing spondylitis and secondary seronegative spondylarthropathies. 6th World Congress of the International-Society-of-Physical-and-Rehabilitation, Medicine (ISPRM) San Juan 2011, 12-16, 9-11.
14. Georgescu D, Iurciu M, Ionita I, et. al. Portal Vein Thrombosis and Gut Microbiota: Understanding the Burden. Rev. Chimie (Bucuresti) 2019; 6: 2181-2185.
15. Foxman B. Epidemiology of urinary tract infections: incidence, morbidity, and economic costs. Am J Med 2002; 113(1): 5-13.
16. Strasinger SK, Di Lorenzo SM. Análisis de orina y de los líquidos corporals. Editorial panamericana 5ª ed. 2008, 74-75.
17. Wald R, Bell CM, Nisenbaum R, et al. Interobserver Reliability of Urine Sediment Interpretation. Clin J Am Soc of Nephrol 2009; 4(3): 567- 571.
18. Khasriya R, Khan S, Lunawat R, et al. The Inadequacy of Urinary Dipstick and Microscopy as Surrogate Markers of Urinary Tract Infection in Urological Outpatients With Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms Without Acute Frequency and Dysuria. J of Urology 2010; 183(5): 1843-1847.
19. Yin P, Kiss A, Leis J. Urinalysis Orders Among Patients Admitted to the General Medicine Service. JAMA Intern Med 2015; 175(10): 1711-1713.
20. David VL, Izvernariu DA, Popoiu C, et al. Morphologic, morphometrical and histochemical properties of the costal cartilage in children with pectus excavatum. Romanian J of Morphology and Embryology 2011; 52(2); 625-629.
Published
2020-12-23
Section
INTERNAL MEDICINE - PEDIATRICS