Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T00:25:35.710Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Manual and Automated Cleaning Are Equally Effective for the Removal of Organic Contaminants From Laparoscopic Instruments

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 December 2017

Tamara Carolina de Camargo ,
Alda Graciele Claudio dos Santos Almeida ,
Camila Quartim de Moraes Bruna ,
Caroline Lopes Ciofi-Silva ,
Flávia Morais Gomes Pinto  and
Kazuko Uchikawa Graziano
Tamara Carolina de Camargo
Affiliation:
School of Nursing, University of São Paulo, Brazil Pontifical Catholic University of São Paulo, Sorocaba, SP, Brazil
Alda Graciele Claudio dos Santos Almeida
Affiliation:
Department of Adult Health Nursing, School of Nursing and Pharmacy, Federal University of Alagoas
Camila Quartim de Moraes Bruna*
Affiliation:
School of Nursing, University of São Paulo, Brazil
Caroline Lopes Ciofi-Silva
Affiliation:
School of Nursing, University of São Paulo, Brazil
Flávia Morais Gomes Pinto
Affiliation:
School of Nursing, University of São Paulo, Brazil
Kazuko Uchikawa Graziano
Affiliation:
School of Nursing, University of São Paulo, Brazil
*
Address correspondence to Camila Quartim de Moraes Bruna, Av Dr Enéas de Carvalho Aguiar, 419. LEM. Cerqueira Cesar. São Paulo, SP Brazil CEP 05403-000 ([email protected]).
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effectiveness of manual and automated methods for cleaning laparoscopic instruments.

DESIGN

Experimental laboratory study.

METHODS

We evaluated 4 methods of cleaning laparoscopic instruments: (1) manual-only cleaning and rinsing with potable tap water; (2) manual cleaning and rinsing with potable tap water, followed by ultrasonic cleaning without rinsing; (3) manual cleaning and rinsing with potable tap water followed by ultrasonic cleaning and rinsing with potable tap water; and (4) manual cleaning and rinsing with potable tap water, followed by ultrasonic cleaning and rinsing: first with potable tap water and then with sterile distilled water. Organic residues of protein, hemoglobin, and carbohydrates were evaluated using spectrophotometry.

RESULTS

The various cleaning methods tested did not result in statistically significant differences (P>.05) in the levels of investigated organic residues.

CONCLUSIONS

All cleaning and rinsing methods tested were found to be effective in reducing the levels of organic residues on laparoscopic instruments. Thus, there is no advantage gained by supplementing manual-only cleaning with automated ultrasonic cleaning, nor was there a difference between rinsing with potable tap versus sterile distilled water.

Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2018;39:58–63

Type
Original Articles
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 39 , Issue 1 , January 2018 , pp. 58 - 63
Copyright
© 2017 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. Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation. Comprehensive guide to steam sterilization and sterility assurance in health care facilities. ANSI/AAMI ST79:2010, A1:2010, A2:2011, A4:2013. Arlington, VA: AAMI; 2013.Google Scholar
2. Parada, AS, Grassbaugh, JA, Devine, JG, Arrington, ED. Instrumentation-specific infection after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Sports Health 2009;1:481–485.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3. Blevins, FT, Salgado, J, Wascher, DC, Koster, F. Septic arthritis following arthroscopic meniscus repair: a cluster of three cases. Arthroscopy 1999;15:35–40.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4. Tosh, PK, Disbot, M, Duffy, JM, et al. Outbreak of Pseudomonas aeruginosa surgical site infections after arthroscopic procedures: Texas, 2009. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2011;32:1179–1186.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5. Cowperthwaite, L, Holm, RL. Guideline implementation: surgical instrument cleaning. AORN J 2015;101:542–552.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6. 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
7. 2011 Summit priority issues from the AAMI/FDA medical device reprocessing summit. Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation website. http://www.aami.org/events/eventdetail.aspx?ItemNumber=1284&navItemNumber=634 Published 2011. Accessed May 3, 2017.Google Scholar
8. Vassey, M, Budge, C, Poolman, T, et al. A quantitative assessment of residual protein levels on dental instruments reprocessed by manual, ultrasonic and automated cleaning methods. Br Dent J 2011;210:E14.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9. 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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10. Liu, D, Lau, YD, Chau, YK, Pacepavicius, G. Simple technique for estimation biofilm accumulation. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 1994;53:913–918.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11. Reprocessing medical devices in health care settings: validation methods and labeling guidance for industry and food and drug administration staff. Food and Drug Administration website. https://www.fda.gov/downloads/medicaldevices/deviceregulationandguidance/guidancedocuments/ucm253010.pdf. Updated 2017. Accessed May 3, 2017.Google Scholar
12. Alfa, MJ, DeGagne, P, Olson, N. Validation of ATS as an appropriate test soil to assess cleaning and sterilization efficacy in narrowed lumen medical devices such as flexible endoscopes. Zentr Steril 2005;13:387–402.Google Scholar
13. Verjat, D, Prognon, P, Darbord, JC. Fluorescence-assay on traces of protein on re-usable medical devices: cleaning efficiency. Int J Pharm 1999;179:267–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14. Kruger, S. Testing the cleaning efficacy in decontamination equipment. Zentr Steril 1997;5:332–344.Google Scholar
15. Alfa, MJ, Nemes, R. Manual versus automated methods for cleaning reusable accessory devices used for minimally invasive surgical procedures. J Hosp Infect 2004;58:50–58.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16. Souza, RQ, Gonçalves, CR, Ikeda, TI, Cruz, AS, Graziano, KU. The impact of the final rinse on the cytotoxicity of critical products submitted for processing. Rev Esc Enferm USP 2015;49:87–92.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed