Pohorylo E M, Lewis E M, Anderson E R
Am J Hosp Pharm. 1983 Jan;40(1):87-90.
The time and cost required by four methods of filling piggyback bottles were compared. The four methods compared were (1) the traditional vacuum method, (2) the Wheaton Unispense Model II, (3) the Valleylab IV 6500 Formulator, and (4) the Instafil method. Batches of 20 bottles filled to 50-ml and 100-ml volumes were used to compare fill rates of all four methods. In addition, batches of 60 bottles filled to 100-ml volumes were used to compare the fill time of the Instafil and the IV 6500 Formulator methods. Relative cost factors were then computed for each method and used for comparison. The results showed the Instafil method to be the fastest method for batches of 20 to 60 bottles. The traditional method demonstrated the lowest overall cost, followed by the Instafil method. The authors recommend the use of the Instafil method for batches of 60 or less. For larger batches, an automated device like the Valleylab Formulator or the Wheaton Unispense may be more appropriate.
比较了四种填充背负式输液瓶方法所需的时间和成本。所比较的四种方法分别为：（1）传统真空法；（2）惠顿Unispense II型；（3）瓦里安IV 6500配制仪；（4）Instafil法。使用装满50毫升和100毫升液体的20瓶一组的批次来比较所有四种方法的灌装速度。此外，使用装满100毫升液体的60瓶一组的批次来比较Instafil法和IV 6500配制仪法的灌装时间。然后计算每种方法的相对成本因素并用于比较。结果表明，对于20至60瓶一组的批次，Instafil法是最快的方法。传统方法的总体成本最低，其次是Instafil法。作者建议对于60瓶及以下的批次使用Instafil法。对于更大的批次，像瓦里安配制仪或惠顿Unispense这样的自动化设备可能更合适。
