Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T07:18:24.767Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A randomised, single-blind comparison of high-level disinfectants for flexible nasendoscopes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 September 2016

B Hitchcock ,
S Moynan ,
C Frampton ,
R Reuther ,
P Gilling  and
F Rowe
B Hitchcock*
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology, Bay of Plenty District Health Board, Tauranga, New Zealand
S Moynan
Affiliation:
Department of Nursing, Bay of Plenty District Health Board, Tauranga, New Zealand
C Frampton
Affiliation:
Department of Statistics, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand
R Reuther
Affiliation:
Department of Nursing, Bay of Plenty District Health Board, Tauranga, New Zealand
P Gilling
Affiliation:
Department of Urology, Bay of Plenty District Health Board, Tauranga, New Zealand
F Rowe
Affiliation:
Open University, Milton Keynes, UK
*
Address for correspondence: Dr Brandon Hitchcock, McIndoe Clinic, 15 Brown Street, Tauranga 3110, New Zealand Fax: +64 7 578 3109 E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives:

To compare the microbiological efficacy, turnaround time, cost, convenience, and patient and user tolerance of Tristel Trio Wipes, PeraSafe solution and Cidex OPA solution for the high-level disinfection of flexible nasendoscopes.

Methods:

Flexible nasendoscopes were used in routine clinical encounters. They were then disinfected with one of the three disinfectant methods. Surveillance cultures were taken before and after each disinfection process. Data relating to each of the study parameters were recorded.

Results:

Positive bacterial cultures were discovered on nasendoscopes disinfected with PeraSafe and Cidex OPA. Tristel Trio Wipes have no capital outlay cost, the lowest running cost, the greatest convenience and the fastest turnaround time. PeraSafe had a faster turnaround time than Cidex OPA, and lower running costs.

Conclusion:

Tristel Trio Wipes are equal to PeraSafe and Cidex OPA in terms of microbiological efficacy. Turnaround time and cost are dramatically reduced when using Tristel Trio Wipes compared to the other disinfectant methods.

Keywords

EndoscopesDecontaminationOtolaryngologyLaryngology
Type
Main Articles
Information
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology , Volume 130 , Issue 11 , November 2016 , pp. 983 - 989
Copyright
Copyright © JLO (1984) Limited 2016 

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

1 Tzanidakis, K, Choudhury, N, Bhat, S, Weerasinghe, A, Marais, J. Evaluation of disinfection of flexible nasendoscopes using Tristel wipes: a prospective single blind study. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 2012;94:185–8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2 Cavaliere, M, Iemma, M. Guidelines for reprocessing nonlumened heat-sensitive ear/nose/throat endoscopes. Laryngoscope 2012;122:1708–18CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3 Spaulding, EH. Chemical disinfection and antisepsis in the hospital. J Hosp Res 1957;9:5–31 Google Scholar
4 Elackattu, A, Zoccoli, M, Spiegel, JH, Grundfast, KM. A comparison of two methods for preventing cross-contamination when using flexible fiberoptic endoscopes in an otolaryngology clinic: disposable sterile sheaths versus immersion in germicidal liquid. Laryngoscope 2010;120:2410–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Guidance for disinfection and sterilization in healthcare facilities. In: http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dhqp/pdf/guidelines/Disinfection_Nov_2008.pdf [27 May 2015]Google Scholar
6 Swift, AC. Guidance on the Decontamination and Sterilization of Rigid and Flexible Endoscopes. London: ENT UK, 2010 Google Scholar
7 Tristel Trio Wipes System. In: http://www.tristel.com/products/healthcare/ent/trio-wipes-system/ [15 September 2015]Google Scholar
8 PeraSafe – General Description. In: http://www.mcc-cellai.com/perasafe1.htm [15 September 2015]Google Scholar
9 Cidex OPA Instructions for Use. In: http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/hse/forms/cidexopa/OPAInstruction.pdf [15 September 2015]Google Scholar
10 Bhattacharyya, N, Kepnes, LJ. The effectiveness of immersion disinfection for flexible fiberoptic laryngoscopes. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2004;130:681–5CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11 Street, I, Hamann, J, Harries, M. Audit of nasendoscope disinfection in practice. Surgeon 2006;4:11–13 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12 Sokol, WN. Nine episodes of anaphylaxis following cystoscopy caused by Cidex OPA (ortho-phthalaldehyde) high-level disinfectant in 4 patients after cytoscopy. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2004;114:392–7CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13Urgent Safety Alert - Second Notice: Labeling Change To Cidex® OPA Solution Instructions For Use. In: https://www.hitpages.com/doc/5417126856753152/2/ [15 March 2016]Google Scholar
14 Hernández, A, Carrasco, M, Ausina, V. Mycobactericidal activity of chlorine dioxide wipes in a modified prEN 14563 test. J Hosp Infect 2008;69:384–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15 Ma, ST, Yeung, AC, Kay, P, Chan, PK, Graham, CA. Transvaginal ultrasound probe contamination by the human papillomavirus in the emergency department. Emerg Med J 2012;30:472–5CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16High level disinfection reduces HPV contamination of transvaginal sonography probes in the emergency department. In: http://emj.bmj.com/content/30/6/472.abstract/reply#content-block [15 March 2016]Google Scholar
17 Phua, CQ, Mahalingappa, Y, Karagama, Y. Sequential cohort study comparing chlorine dioxide wipes with automated washing for decontamination of flexible nasendoscopes. J Laryngol Otol 2012;126:809–14CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed