Comparison of platelet counting technologies in equine platelet concentrates.
Authors: O'Shea Caitlin M, Werre Stephen R, Dahlgren Linda A
Journal: Veterinary surgery : VS
Summary
# Editorial Summary: Platelet Counting Technologies in Equine PRP Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) has become widely used in equine orthopaedic practice, yet uncertainty remains about which counting methods accurately quantify platelet concentrations in these biologics. O'Shea and colleagues compared four platelet enumeration technologies—optical scatter (Advia 2120), impedance (CellDyn 3700), manual counting, and fluorescent antibody flow cytometry—across 32 horses whose blood was processed using the Magellan PRP system. Although regression analysis revealed systematic and proportional bias between the two automated analysers (with the Advia 2120 consistently reporting higher concentrations than the CellDyn 3700), ANOVA showed no significant differences in average values across all four methods, confirming they are broadly equivalent for clinical use. The Magellan system reliably produced high platelet concentrations meeting therapeutic targets; however, practitioners should note that white blood cell concentrations were unexpectedly elevated, which may be problematic depending on the intended orthopaedic application. For practitioners already using any of these four counting methods, results are sufficiently comparable to allow confident clinical decision-making, though understanding the specific performance characteristics of your chosen technology remains important for interpreting individual results.
Read the full abstract on PubMed
Practical Takeaways
- •If using the Magellan system to produce PRP, expect high platelet concentrations but check WBC levels carefully—elevated WBC may not be suitable for all orthopedic uses and may require alternative concentration methods.
- •When comparing platelet counts between labs or devices, Advia 2120 and CellDyn 3700 will give systematically different results; choose one method and stay consistent, or use hand counting/flow cytometry for standardization.
- •For clinical PRP work, any of the four counting methods tested will give reliable results on average, so choose based on availability and cost rather than accuracy concerns.
Key Findings
- •Advia 2120 optical scatter method consistently measured higher platelet concentrations than CellDyn 3700 impedance method, with systematic and proportional biases detected between the two automated systems.
- •No bias was observed between hand counting and fluorescent antibody flow cytometry methods, indicating agreement among manual and flow cytometry approaches.
- •Magellan PRP system consistently generated desirably high platelet concentrations but produced unacceptably high white blood cell (WBC) concentrations for some orthopedic applications.
- •All four platelet counting methods were equivalent on average (ANOVA, P > 0.05) and therefore suitable for clinical PRP applications despite identified systematic biases between automated methods.