Literature DB >> 3046782

Skin-puncture and blood-collecting technique for infants: update and problems.

S Meites1.   

Abstract

This is updated information on acceptable practice in skin puncture and blood collection in infants, as well as on the devices used, with the additional aim of emphasizing major problem areas and some tentative solutions. Consensus standards for skin puncture have little experimental support, and evade the hard fact that studies are needed to clarify optimum sites for puncture and depth and width of lancets, and to assess the effects of compression and skin resistance in the puncturing process. Preliminary data revealed that the puncturing depth of 2.4 mm recommended for the newborn is excessive. In four of 14 newborns at necropsy, the distance from posterior planar skin surface to underlying bone ranged between 2.0 and 2.2 mm. An experimental lancet, with a 1.8-mm tip length and a diameter of 0.79 mm yielded customary blood volumes from newborns in three of the four pediatric centers where it was tested. Lack of success with the lancet was attributed to inexperienced phlebotomists, not to the lancet's decreased size. Also reviewed are problems with common devices used, and the need for examining the "economy" of blood collection.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1988        PMID: 3046782

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Chem        ISSN: 0009-9147            Impact factor:   8.327


  3 in total

1.  Capillary blood sampling: should the heel be warmed?

Authors:  D P Barker; B Willetts; V C Cappendijk; N Rutter
Journal:  Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed       Date:  1996-03       Impact factor: 5.747

2.  An automatic incision device for obtaining blood samples from the heels of preterm infants causes less damage than a conventional manual lancet.

Authors:  H Vertanen; V Fellman; M Brommels; L Viinikka
Journal:  Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed       Date:  2001-01       Impact factor: 5.747

3.  Large scale validation of a new non-invasive and non-contact bilirubinometer in neonates with risk factors.

Authors:  Animesh Halder; Aniruddha Adhikari; Ria Ghosh; Soumendra Singh; Amrita Banerjee; Nilanjana Ghosh; Arnab Madhab Bhattacharya; Shrabani Mandal; Prantar Chakrabarti; Debasis Bhattacharyya; Hatem M Altass; Moataz Morad; Saleh A Ahmed; Asim Kumar Mallick; Samir Kumar Pal
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2020-07-07       Impact factor: 4.379

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.