RESUMO
The large volumes of samples to be analysed every day would be impossible to manage without laboratory automation. As laboratory procedures have progressed, so have the tasks of laboratory personnel. With this feature article, we would like to provide (bio)chemical practitioners with little or no knowledge of laboratory automation with a guide to help them decide whether to implement laboratory automation and find a suitable system. Especially in small- and medium-sized laboratories, operating a laboratory system means having bioanalytical knowledge, but also being familiar with the technical aspects. However, time, budget and personnel limitations allow little opportunity for personnel to get into the depths of laboratory automation. This includes not only the operation, but also the decision to purchase an automation system. Hasty investments do not only result in slow or non-existent cost recovery, but also occupy valuable laboratory space. We have structured the article as a decision tree, so readers can selectively read chapters that apply to their individual situation. This flexible approach allows each reader to create a personal reading flow tailored to their specific needs. We tried to address a variety of perspectives on the topic, including people who are either supportive or sceptical of laboratory automation, personnel who want or need to automate specific processes, those who are unsure whether to automate and those who are interested in automation but do not know which areas to prioritize. We also help to make a decision whether to reactivate or discard already existing and unused laboratory equipment.
RESUMO
Background: Chronic nerve compression is the most common indication for nerve surgery. However, the clinical diagnosis still relies on surrogate parameters since devices for direct nerve compression pressure measurement (DNCPM) are clinically unavailable yet. Objectives: To review previous approaches to DNCPM and evaluate presently available microsensor systems for their feasibility and reliability in preclinical nerve compression models. Methods: A scoping literature review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA-ScR guidelines. A subsequent market research aimed at identifying commercially available sensor systems potentially suitable for DNCPM. Sensors were evaluated for feasibility and safety of perineural sensor positioning, tissue compatibility and measurement reliability in a synthetic nerve compression model and an ex-vivo chicken leg model. Results: A scoping literature review identified 197 potentially eligible studies of which 65 were included in the analysis. Previous approaches to DNCPM predominantly used pressure sensing catheters designed for fluid- or intra-compartmental pressure measurement. A market research identified two piezoresistive sensor systems (IntraSense, SMi, United States; Mikro-Cath, Millar, United States) as potentially suitable for intraoperative DNCPM. In both preclinical models, the detected compression pressure differed significantly between sensors and systems showed substantial measurement variability with a median percent coefficient of variation between 15.5% and 32%. Sensor position was accountable for up to 99.1% of the variance. Conclusion: Measurement variability caused by unreliable sensor positioning is a key limitation of presently available sensors when applied for nerve compression measurements. Redesigned systems with small, flat-shaped and longitudinally oriented sensors and dedicated introducers would facilitate sensor positioning and therefore may allow for reliable measurements.