OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the use of the TriPath PREP (previously called AutoCyte) TriPath Inc., Burlington, North Carolina, U.S.A.) in nongynecologic cytologic material by performing side-by-side comparison of conventional preparations with TriPath-prepared slides. STUDY DESIGN: An initial study of 613 cases (set A) was conducted to compare the TriPath PREP system with conventional methods for the evaluation of nongynecologic specimens, including urine, body cavity effusions, cerebrospinal fluid, pulmonary and gastrointestinal specimens. Paired cases were evaluated for cellularity, staining quality, preservation and representation of diagnostic material. Subsequent changes in the automated technique warranted reevaluation of the TriPath method. The follow-up study of 259 cases (set B) was conducted with the same design as set A. Results of evaluated parameters were analyzed using the chi 2 test. RESULTS: Results of the two sets were strikingly different. Prior to technical changes made by the laboratory, the TriPath method was significantly inferior. In the second set, the preferred material was most commonly the TriPath-prepared material. In particular, the majority of urine samples were prepared better by the automated, thin-layer system. CONCLUSION: The TriPath PREP system offers a reliable preparation of urine and has potential for other nongynecologic specimens, provided that careful attention is paid to technical details and some adjustments are made to account for specimen variability.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the use of the TriPath PREP (previously called AutoCyte) TriPath Inc., Burlington, North Carolina, U.S.A.) in nongynecologic cytologic material by performing side-by-side comparison of conventional preparations with TriPath-prepared slides. STUDY DESIGN: An initial study of 613 cases (set A) was conducted to compare the TriPath PREP system with conventional methods for the evaluation of nongynecologic specimens, including urine, body cavity effusions, cerebrospinal fluid, pulmonary and gastrointestinal specimens. Paired cases were evaluated for cellularity, staining quality, preservation and representation of diagnostic material. Subsequent changes in the automated technique warranted reevaluation of the TriPath method. The follow-up study of 259 cases (set B) was conducted with the same design as set A. Results of evaluated parameters were analyzed using the chi 2 test. RESULTS: Results of the two sets were strikingly different. Prior to technical changes made by the laboratory, the TriPath method was significantly inferior. In the second set, the preferred material was most commonly the TriPath-prepared material. In particular, the majority of urine samples were prepared better by the automated, thin-layer system. CONCLUSION: The TriPath PREP system offers a reliable preparation of urine and has potential for other nongynecologic specimens, provided that careful attention is paid to technical details and some adjustments are made to account for specimen variability.