Comparison of the conventional tube and erythrocyte-magnetized technology in titration of red blood cell alloantibodies

BACKGROUND Erythrocyte alloantibodies are mainly produced after immune stimulation,such as blood transfusion,pregnancy,and transplantation,and are the leading causes of severe hemolytic transfusion reactions and difficulty in blood grouping and matching.Therefore,antibody screening is critical to prevent and improve red cell alloantibodies.Routine tube assay is the primary detection method of antibody screening.Recently,erythrocyte-magnetized technology(EMT)has been increasingly used in clinical practice.This study intends to probe the application and efficacy of the conventional tube and EMT in red blood cell alloantibody titration to provide a reference for clinical blood transfusion.AIM To investigate the application value of conventional tube and EMT in red blood cell alloantibody titration and enhance the safety of blood transfusion practice.METHODS A total of 1298 blood samples were harvested from blood donors at the Department of Blood Transfusion of our hospital from March 2021 to December 2022.A 5 mL blood sample was collected in tubing,which was then cut,and the whole blood was put into a test tube for centrifugation to separate the serum.Different red blood cell blood group antibody titers were simultaneously detected using the tube polybrene test,tube antiglobulin test(AGT),and EMT screening irregular antibody methods to determine the best test method.RESULTS Simultaneous detection was performed through the tube polybrene test,tube AGT and EMT screening irregular antibodies.It was discovered that the EMT screening irregular antibody method could detect all immunoglobulin G(IgG)and immunoglobulin M(IgM)irregular antibodies,and the results of manual tube AGT were satisfactory,but the operation time was lengthy,and the equipment had a large footprint.The EMT screening irregular antibody assay was also conducted to determine its activity against type O Rh(D)red blood cells,and the outcomes were satisfactory.Furthermore,compared to the conventional tube method,the EMT screening irregular antibody method was more cost-effective and had significantly higher detection efficiency.CONCLUSION With a higher detection rate,the EMT screening irregular antibody method can detect both IgG and IgM irregular antibodies faster and more effectively than the conventional tube method.

Randomized Trial of Immediate Postoperative Pain Following Single-incision Versus Traditional Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy

Background： We undertook a randomized controlled trial to ascertain if single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy （SILC） was more beneficial for reducing postoperative pain than traditional laparoscopic cholecystectomy （TLC）. Moreover, the influencing factors of SI LC were analyzed. Methods： A total of 552 patients with symptomatic gallstones or polyps were allocated randomly to undergo SILC （n = 138） or TLC （n - 414）. Data on postoperative pain score, operative time, complications, procedure conversion, and hospital costs were collected. After a 6-month follow-up, all data were analyzed using the intention-to-treat principle. Results： Among SILC group, 4 （2.9%） cases required conversion to TLC. Mean operative time of SILC was significantly longer than that of TLC （58.97 ± 21.56 vs. 43.38 ± 19.02 min, P 〈 0.001）. The two groups showed no significant differences in analgesic dose, duration of hospital stay, or cost. Median pain scores were similar between the two groups 7 days after surgery, but SILC-treated patients had a significantly lower median pain score 6 h after surgery （10-point scale： 3 [2, 4] vs. 4 [3, 5], P = 0.009）. Importantly, subgroup analyses of operative time for SILC showed that a longer operative time was associated with greater prevalence of pain score 〉5 （≥100 min： 5/7 patients vs. 〈40 min, 3/16 patients, P = 0.015）. Conclusions： The primary benefit of SILC appears to be slightly less pain immediately after surgery. Surgeon training seems to be important because the shorter operative time for SILC may elicit less pain immediately after surgery.

Study on the Postoperative Pain Calls for More Methods to Control Potential Bias

We thank Dr. Liu et al. very much for their attention on our recent article. In that paper, we reported a prospective randomized clinical trial comparing otitcomes between traditional laparoscopic cholecysiectomy and single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy （SILC）. It revealed that the SILC-treated patients had a signilicantly lower pain score only at postoperative 6 hours, but at 24 hours and longer after surgery pain scores were not different between the two groups.