Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

Manual Methods Are Suboptimal Compared With Automated Methods for Cleaning of Single-Use Biopsy Forceps

  • M. J. Alfa (a1), R. Nemes (a2), N. Olson (a1) and A. Mulaire (a1)

Abstract

Objective.

Most reusable biopsy forceps and all of the currently available single-use biopsy forceps do not have a port that allows fluid flow down the inner tubular shaft of the device. Reusable biopsy forceps are widely used and reprocessed in healthcare facilities, and single-use biopsy forceps are reprocessed either in-house (eg, in Canada and Japan) or by third-party reprocessors (eg, in the United States). The objective of this study was to determine the cleaning efficacy of automated narrow-lumen sonic irrigation cleaning, sonication-only cleaning, and manual cleaning for biopsy forceps.

Design.

A simulated-use study was performed by inoculating the inner channel of single-use biopsy forceps with artificial test soil containing both Enterococcus faecalis and Geobacillus stearothermophilus at concentrations of 106 colony-forming units per milliliter. The cleaning methods evaluated were manual cleaning, sonication-only cleaning, and “retroflush” cleaning by an automated narrow-lumen irrigator. Bioburden and organic soil reduction after washing was evaluated. Forceps used in biopsies of patients were also tested to determine the worst-case soiling levels.

Results.

Only retroflush irrigation cleaning could effectively remove material from within the shaft portion of the biopsy forceps: it achieved an average reduction of more than 95% in levels of protein, hemoglobin, carbohydrate, and endotoxin. However, even this method of cleaning was not totally effective, as only a 2 log10 reduction in bioburden could be achieved, and there were low residual levels of hemoglobin and carbohydrate.

Conclusion.

The data from this evaluation indicate that manual and sonication-only cleaning methods for biopsy forceps were totally ineffective in removing material from within the biopsy forceps. Even the use of retroflush cleaning was not totally effective. These findings suggest that in-hospital reprocessing of biopsy forceps with currently available equipment and cleaning methods is suboptimal.

Copyright

Corresponding author

Microbiology Lab, St. Boniface General Hospital, 409 Tache Ave, Winnipeg, Manitoba, CanadaR2H 2A6 (malfa@sbgh.mb.ca)

References

Hide All
1.Position statement: multi-society guideline for reprocessing flexible gastrointestinal endoscopes. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy 2003; 58:18
2.American National Standard Institute (ANSI). Safe handling and biological decontamination of medical devices in health care facilities and in nonclinical settings. Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation (AAMI). ANSI/AAMI ST35. Washington, DC: AAMI; 1996:115.
3.Ogoshi, K. Working party report: care of endoscopes: reprocessing of gastrointestinal endoscopic accessories. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2000; 15: G82G85.
4.Alvarado, CJ, Reichelderfer, M, APIC guideline for infection prevention and control in flexible endoscopy. Am J Infect Control 2000; 28:138155.
5.Ahuja, V, Tandon, RK. Working party report: care of endoscopes: survey of gastrointestinal endoscope disinfection and accessory reprocessing practices in the Asia-Pacific region. J Gostroenterol Hepatol 2000; 15:G78G81.
6.Miller, M, Gravel, D, Paton, S. Reuse of single-use medical devices in Canadian acute-care health facilities. Paper presented at Canadian Association of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Conference; November 5-8, 2001; Victoria, Canada.
7.Canadian Healthcare Association (CHA). The reuse of single-use medical devices— guidelines for healthcare facilities. Ottawa, Ontario: CHA Press; 1996.
8.Furman, PJ. Third-party reprocessing of endoscopic accessories. In: Gostrointestinal Endoscopy Clinics of North America 2000; 10:385392.
9.Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation (AAMI). Designing, testing, and labeling reusable medical devices for reprocessing in health care facilities: a guide for device manufacturers. AAMI Technical Information Report No. 12. Arlington, VA: AAMI; 1994.
10.Alfa, MJ. Medical-device reprocessing. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2000; 21:496498.
11.Wilcox, CM. Methodology of reprocessing one-time use accessories: endoscopic disinfection and reprocessing of endoscopic accessories. In: Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Clinics of North America 2000; 2:379384.
12.Alfa, MJ, DeGagne, P, Olson, N. Worst-case soiling levels for patient-used flexible endoscopes before and after cleaning. Am J Infect Control 1999; 27:392401.
13.Alfa, MJ, Jackson, M. A new hydrogen peroxide-based medical device detergent with germicidal properties: comparison with enzymatic cleaners. Am J Infect Control 2001; 29:110.
14.Alfa, MJ, Nemes, R. Inadequacy of manual cleaning for reprocessing single-use, triple-lumen sphincterotomes: simulated-use testing comparing manual with automated cleaning methods. Am J Infect Control 2003; 31: 193207.
15.Lui, E, Lau, YL, Chau, YK, Pacepavicius, G. Simple technique for estimation of biofilm accumulation. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 1994; 53:913918.
16.Merritt, K, Hitchins, VM, Brown, SA. Safety and cleaning of medical materials and devices. J Biomed Mater Res 2000; 53:131136.
17.Cowen, AE. The clinical risks of infection associated with endoscopy. Can J Gastroenterol 2001; 15:321331.
18.Leonard, DL, Mills, SE. Comparison of automated instrument cleaning: preliminary results. Infect Control Steril Technol 1997:20-28.
19.Gilbert, P, McBain, AJ. Biofilms: their impact on health and their recalcitrance toward biocides. Am J Infect Control 2001; 29:252255.
20.Feigel, DW, Hughes, JM. FDA and CDC public health advisory: infections from endoscopes inadequately reprocessed by an automated endoscope reprocessing system. Letter 1999. Available at: http://www.fda.gov/dcrh/safety/endoreprocess.html. Accessed July 14, 2006.
21.Marshburn, PB, Rutala, WA, Wannamaker, NS, Hulka, JF. Gas and steam sterilization of assembled versus disassembled laparoscopic equipment: microbiologic studies. J Reprod Med 1991; 36:483487.

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