Comparison of Inoculation with the InoqulA and WASP Automated Systems with Manual Inoculation.

The quality of sample inoculation is critical for achieving an optimal yield of discrete colonies in both monomicrobial and polymicrobial samples to perform identification and antibiotic susceptibility testing. Consequently, we compared the performance between the InoqulA (BD Kiestra), the WASP (Copan), and manual inoculation methods. Defined mono- and polymicrobial samples of 4 bacterial species and cloudy urine specimens were inoculated on chromogenic agar by the InoqulA, the WASP, and manual methods. Images taken with ImagA (BD Kiestra) were analyzed with the VisionLab version 3.43 image analysis software to assess the quality of growth and to prevent subjective interpretation of the data. A 3- to 10-fold higher yield of discrete colonies was observed following automated inoculation with both the InoqulA and WASP systems than that with manual inoculation. The difference in performance between automated and manual inoculation was mainly observed at concentrations of >10(6) bacteria/ml. Inoculation with the InoqulA system allowed us to obtain significantly more discrete colonies than the WASP system at concentrations of >10(7) bacteria/ml. However, the level of difference observed was bacterial species dependent. Discrete colonies of bacteria present in 100- to 1,000-fold lower concentrations than the most concentrated populations in defined polymicrobial samples were not reproducibly recovered, even with the automated systems. The analysis of cloudy urine specimens showed that InoqulA inoculation provided a statistically significantly higher number of discrete colonies than that with WASP and manual inoculation. Consequently, the automated InoqulA inoculation greatly decreased the requirement for bacterial subculture and thus resulted in a significant reduction in the time to results, laboratory workload, and laboratory costs.

Laboratory automation in clinical bacteriology: what system to choose?

Automation was introduced many years ago in several diagnostic disciplines such as chemistry, haematology and molecular biology. The first laboratory automation system for clinical bacteriology was released in 2006, and it rapidly proved its value by increasing productivity, allowing a continuous increase in sample volumes despite limited budgets and personnel shortages. Today, two major manufacturers, BD Kiestra and Copan, are commercializing partial or complete laboratory automation systems for bacteriology. The laboratory automation systems are rapidly evolving to provide improved hardware and software solutions to optimize laboratory efficiency. However, the complex parameters of the laboratory and automation systems must be considered to determine the best system for each given laboratory. We address several topics on laboratory automation that may help clinical bacteriologists to understand the particularities and operative modalities of the different systems. We present (a) a comparison of the engineering and technical features of the various elements composing the two different automated systems currently available, (b) the system workflows of partial and complete laboratory automation, which define the basis for laboratory reorganization required to optimize system efficiency, (c) the concept of digital imaging and telebacteriology, (d) the connectivity of laboratory automation to the laboratory information system, (e) the general advantages and disadvantages as well as the expected impacts provided by laboratory automation and (f) the laboratory data required to conduct a workflow assessment to determine the best configuration of an automated system for the laboratory activities and specificities.