Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-01T01:55:06.406Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Challenging Residual Contamination of Instruments for Robotic Surgery in Japan

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 October 2016

Yuhei Saito ,
Hiroshi Yasuhara ,
Satoshi Murakoshi ,
Takami Komatsu ,
Kazuhiko Fukatsu  and
Yushi Uetera
Yuhei Saito*
Affiliation:
Surgical Center, University of Tokyo Hospital, Tokyo, Japan
Hiroshi Yasuhara
Affiliation:
Surgical Center, University of Tokyo Hospital, Tokyo, Japan
Satoshi Murakoshi
Affiliation:
Surgical Center, University of Tokyo Hospital, Tokyo, Japan
Takami Komatsu
Affiliation:
Surgical Center, University of Tokyo Hospital, Tokyo, Japan
Kazuhiko Fukatsu
Affiliation:
Surgical Center, University of Tokyo Hospital, Tokyo, Japan
Yushi Uetera
Affiliation:
Surgical Center, University of Tokyo Hospital, Tokyo, Japan
*
Address correspondence to Yuhei Saito, MS, Surgical Center, University of Tokyo Hospital, 7-3-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, Japan 113-8655 ([email protected]).
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Recently, robotic surgery has been introduced in many hospitals. The structure of robotic instruments is so complex that updating their cleaning methods is a challenge for healthcare professionals. However, there is limited information on the effectiveness of cleaning for instruments for robotic surgery.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the level of residual contamination of instruments for robotic surgery and to develop a method to evaluate the cleaning efficacy for complex surgical devices.

METHODS

Surgical instruments were collected immediately after operations and/or after in-house cleaning, and the level of residual protein was measured. Three serial measurements were performed on instruments after cleaning to determine the changes in the level of contamination and the total amount of residual protein. The study took place from September 1, 2013, through June 30, 2015, in Japan.

RESULTS

The amount of protein released from robotic instruments declined exponentially. The amount after in-house cleaning was 650, 550, and 530 µg/instrument in the 3 serial measurements. The overall level of residual protein in each measurement was much higher for robotic instruments than for ordinary instruments (P<.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Our data demonstrated that complete removal of residual protein from surgical instruments is virtually impossible. The pattern of decline differed depending on the instrument type, which reflected the complex structure of the instruments. It might be necessary to establish a new standard for cleaning using a novel classification according to the structural complexity of instruments, especially for those for robotic surgery.

Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2017;38:143–146

Type
Original Articles
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 38 , Issue 2 , February 2017 , pp. 143 - 146
Copyright
© 2016 by The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America. All rights reserved 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1. Dancer, SJ, Stewart, M, Coulombe, C, Gregori, A, Virdi, M. Surgical site infections linked to contaminated surgical instruments. J Hosp Infect 2012;81:231–238.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2. Southworth, PM. Infections and exposures: reported incidents associated with unsuccessful decontamination of reusable surgical instruments. J Hosp Infect 2014;88:127–131.Google Scholar
3. Rutala, WA, Gergen, MF, Weber, DJ. Efficacy of a washer-disinfector in eliminating healthcare-associated pathogens from surgical instruments. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2014;35:883–885.Google Scholar
4. Alfa, MJ. Monitoring and improving the effectiveness of cleaning medical and surgical devices. Am J Infect Control 2013;41:S56–S59.Google Scholar
5. Evangelista, SS, Santos, SG, Stoianoff, MAR, Oliveira, AC. Analysis of microbial load on surgical instruments after clinical use and following manual and automated cleaning. Am J Infect Control 2015;43:522–527.Google Scholar
6. Nyström, B. Disinfection of surgical instruments. J Hosp Infect 1981;2:363–368.Google Scholar
7. Rutala, WA, Gergen, MF, Jones, JF, Weber, DJ. Levels of microbial contamination on surgical instruments. Am J Infect Control 1998;26:143–145.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8. Saito, Y, Kobayashi, H, Uetera, Y, Yasuhara, H, Kajiura, T, Okubo, T. Microbial contamination of surgical instruments used for laparotomy. Am J Infect Control 2014;42:43–47.Google Scholar
9. Rutala, WA, Gergen, MF, Weber, DJ. Microbial contamination on used surgical instruments. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2014;35:1068–1070.Google Scholar
10. Nayuni, NK, Cloutman-Green, E, Hollis, M, Hartley, J, Martin, S, Perrett, D. Critical evaluation of ninhydrin for monitoring surgical instrument decontamination. J Hosp Infect 2013;84:97–102.Google Scholar
11. Michels, W, Roth, K, Eibl, R. Assessment of cleaning efficacy based on the protein-surface relationship. Central Service 2013;3:212–215.Google Scholar
12. Carter, A, Krüger, S, Schmidt, V, et al. Guideline compiled by the DGKH, DGSV and AKI for validation and routine monitoring of automated cleaning and disinfection processes for heat-resistant medical devices as well as advice on selecting washer-disinfectors. Central Service 2007;15:1–48.Google Scholar
13. Tan, A, Ashrafian, H, Scott, AJ, et al. Robotic surgery: disruptive innovation or unfulfilled promise? A systematic review and meta-analysis of the first 30 years. Surg Endosc 2016;30:4330–4352.Google Scholar
14. Wehrl, M, Michels, W. A method for testing the cleaning of MIS robotic instruments. Central Service 2013;3:202–207.Google Scholar
15. Ayliffe, G. Decontamination of minimally invasive surgical endoscopes and accessories. J Hosp Infect 2000;45:263–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16. Deshpande, A, Smith, GWG, Smith, AJ. Biofouling of surgical power tools during routine use. J Hosp Infect 2015;90:179–185.Google Scholar
17. US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Reprocessing medical devices in health care settings: validation methods and labeling. FDA website. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/GuidanceDocuments/UCM253010.pdf. Published 2015. Accessed July 2, 2016.Google Scholar
18. Baxter, RL, Baxter, HC, Campbell, GA, et al. Quantitative analysis of residual protein contamination on reprocessed surgical instruments. J Hosp Infect 2006;63:439–444.Google Scholar
19. Lucas, AD, Nagaraja, S, Gordon, EA, Hitchins, VM. Evaluating device design and cleanability of orthopedic device models contaminated with a clinically relevant bone test soil. Biomed Instrum Technol 2015;49:354–362.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
20. Saito, Y, Yasuhara, H, Murakoshi, S, Komatsu, T, Fukatsu, K, Uetera, Y. Novel concept of cleanliness of instruments for robotic surgery. J Hosp Infect 2016;93:360–361.Google Scholar
21. Alfa, MJ, Nemes, R, Olson, N, Mulaire, A. Manual methods are suboptimal compared with automated methods for cleaning of single-use biopsy forceps. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2006;27:841–846.Google Scholar