Laboratory Diagnosis of Renal Disorders

Automated Urine Sediment Analyzer Compared with Manual Methods

  • Sharanya K KMCH Institute of Health sciences and research, Coimbatore -641 014 INDIA
  • Prasanna N Kumar PSG institute of Medical sciences and Research Coimbatore - 641 004 INDIA
Keywords: Automation, Renal Disorders, Manual Methods, Urinalysis, Casts, Crystals, Cells


BACKGROUND: Urinalysis is one of the earliest methods used to screen and detect patients with kidney diseases. It also helps to monitor and assess the severity of the disease process in already diagnosed patients. Microscopy plays a vital role in routine urinalysis and gives more information when analyzed together with chemical strip tests. Introduction of automation of the conventional methods of urinalysis has reduced the disadvantages of manual methods in terms of accuracy of results and turnaround time.  METHOD: Aim of the present study is to evaluate the performance of an automatic urinalysis system – FUS-100 (which in cooperates an automatic urine chemistry analyzer H-800) manufactured by Dirui Industrial Co. Ltd., China in patients with renal diseases and compare the results of microscopy with manual microscopic analysis.  In addition, our study aims to find out the possibility of safely reducing the number of manual microscopy analyses by cross-interpretation of the results generated by FUS-100 automated urine particle analyzer with manual methods. The urine sediments of five hundred urine samples were examined by these two methods. RESULT Automation of urine analysis decreases the turnaround time and is less labour intensive leading to better accuracy and precision. CONCLUSION Preanalytical errors related to centrifugation and sediment preparation are prevented in automation. Our study tends to suggest that automation of urine microscopy therefore is a more standardized procedure and makes urine microscopy a more objective investigation.

Author Biographies

Sharanya K, KMCH Institute of Health sciences and research, Coimbatore -641 014 INDIA
Department of Pathology
Prasanna N Kumar, PSG institute of Medical sciences and Research Coimbatore - 641 004 INDIA
Department of Pathology


1. McPherson RA, Ben-Ezra J. Basic examination of urine. In: McPherson, Pincus MR. Editors. Henry’s Clinical diagnosis and Management by Laboratory methods. 22nd Ed. Ch. 28. Philadelphia: Saunders Elsevier; 2011.
2. Clinical and laboratory standards Institute, Urinalysis: Approved guideline- 3rd Ed. 2009.
3. European urinalysis group. European urinalysis guidelines.Scand J Lab Invest 2000; 60:1-96.
4. Darci RB, John CL. Automated urinalysis in the clinical lab. Medical laboratory observer; 2012.
5. Yuksel H, Kilic E.E, Ekinsi A, Evliyaoglu O. Comparison of fully automated urine sediment analyzers H800-FUS100 and LabumatUrised with manual microscopy. J Clin Lab Anal. 2013; 27:312-316.
6. Coppens A. Speeckaert M, Delanghe J. The pre-analytical challenges of routine urinalysis. Acta Clin Belg. 2010; 65:182-9.
7. Foggazi GB, Verdesca S, Garigali G. Urinalysis: Core curriculum 2008. Am J Kidney Dis. 2008; 51:1052-1067.
8. Budak YU, Huysal K. Comparison of three automated systems for urine chemistry and sediment analysis in routine laboratory practice. Clin Lab. 2011; 57:47-52.
9. Winkel P, Statland BE, Jorgensen K. Urine microscopy, an ill defined method, examined by a multifactorial technique. Clin Chem. 1974; 20:436-439.
10. Brody LH, Sallada JR, Ambaster K. Urinalysis and the urinary sediment. Med Clin North Am. 1971; 55:243-266.
Original Article