Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

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

  • Tamara Carolina de Camargo (a1) (a2), Alda Graciele Claudio dos Santos Almeida (a3), Camila Quartim de Moraes Bruna (a1), Caroline Lopes Ciofi-Silva (a1), Flávia Morais Gomes Pinto (a1) and Kazuko Uchikawa Graziano (a1)...

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

Copyright

Corresponding author

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 (caquartim@yahoo.com.br).

References

Hide All
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.
2. Parada, AS, Grassbaugh, JA, Devine, JG, Arrington, ED. Instrumentation-specific infection after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Sports Health 2009;1:481485.
3. Blevins, FT, Salgado, J, Wascher, DC, Koster, F. Septic arthritis following arthroscopic meniscus repair: a cluster of three cases. Arthroscopy 1999;15:3540.
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;32:11791186.
5. Cowperthwaite, L, Holm, RL. Guideline implementation: surgical instrument cleaning. AORN J 2015;101:542552.
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;49:354362.
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.
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.
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;27:841846.
10. Liu, D, Lau, YD, Chau, YK, Pacepavicius, G. Simple technique for estimation biofilm accumulation. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 1994;53:913918.
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.
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;13:387402.
13. Verjat, D, Prognon, P, Darbord, JC. Fluorescence-assay on traces of protein on re-usable medical devices: cleaning efficiency. Int J Pharm 1999;179:267271.
14. Kruger, S. Testing the cleaning efficacy in decontamination equipment. Zentr Steril 1997;5:332344.
15. Alfa, MJ, Nemes, R. Manual versus automated methods for cleaning reusable accessory devices used for minimally invasive surgical procedures. J Hosp Infect 2004;58:5058.
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;49:8792.

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

  • Tamara Carolina de Camargo (a1) (a2), Alda Graciele Claudio dos Santos Almeida (a3), Camila Quartim de Moraes Bruna (a1), Caroline Lopes Ciofi-Silva (a1), Flávia Morais Gomes Pinto (a1) and Kazuko Uchikawa Graziano (a1)...

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed