目的:比较使用紫外线(UV)SmartD60光系统和Impelux™技术的消毒方案与标准的Cidex邻苯二甲醛(OPA)消毒方案用于清洁柔性光纤喉镜(FFL)的有效性。
方法:在常规使用后,对200个FFL进行细菌污染检测,用四种方法之一消毒后测试了另外200个FFL:酶洗涤剂加CidexOPA(标准),酶洗涤剂加UVSmartD60,超细纤维布加UVSmartD60,非无菌擦拭加UVSmartD60。使用Kruskal-WallisANOVA和Fisher的双侧精确比较了消毒前后的微生物负荷水平和阳性培养率,分别。
结果:常规使用后,大约56%(112/200)的FFL受到污染,平均污染水平为9,973.7±70,136.3CFU/mL。标准的再处理方法没有显示阳性培养物。酶加紫外线,超细纤维加紫外线,非无菌擦拭加紫外线方法的污染率为4%(2/50),6%(3/50),和12%(6/50),分别,治疗组之间无显著差异(p>0.05)。每种消毒技术后,消毒前的微生物负荷水平显着降低(p<0.001)。酶加紫外线后恢复的平均微生物负荷,超细纤维加紫外线,和非无菌擦拭加紫外线分别为0.40CFU/mL±2,0.60CFU/mL±2.4和12.2CFU/mL±69.5,治疗组之间无显著性差异(p>0.05)。微球菌属(53.8%)最常分离,没有发现高度关注的生物。
结论:使用UVSmartD60的消毒方案与使用CidexOPA的标准化学消毒方案一样有效。
方法:NA喉镜,133:3512-3519,2023年。
To compare the effectiveness of disinfection protocols utilizing a ultraviolet (UV) Smart D60 light system with Impelux™ technology with a standard Cidex ortho-phthalaldehyde (OPA) disinfection protocol for cleaning flexible fiberoptic laryngoscopes (FFLs).
Two hundred FFLs were tested for bacterial contamination after routine use, and another 200 FFLs were tested after disinfection with one of four methods: enzymatic detergent plus Cidex OPA (standard), enzymatic detergent plus UV Smart D60, microfiber cloth plus UV Smart D60, and nonsterile wipe plus UV Smart D60. Pre- and post-disinfection microbial burden levels and positive culture rates were compared using Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA and Fisher\'s two-sided exact, respectively.
After routine use, approximately 56% (112/200) of FFLs were contaminated, with an average contamination level of 9,973.7 ± 70,136.3 CFU/mL. The standard reprocessing method showed no positive cultures. The enzymatic plus UV, microfiber plus UV, and nonsterile wipe plus UV methods yielded contamination rates of 4% (2/50), 6% (3/50), and 12% (6/50), respectively, with no significant differences among the treatment groups (p > 0.05). The pre-disinfection microbial burden levels decreased significantly after each disinfection technique (p < 0.001). The average microbial burden recovered after enzymatic plus UV, microfiber plus UV, and nonsterile wipe plus UV were 0.40 CFU/mL ± 2, 0.60 CFU/mL ± 2.4, and 12.2 CFU/mL ± 69.5, respectively, with no significant difference among the treatment groups (p > 0.05). Micrococcus species (53.8%) were most frequently isolated, and no high-concern organisms were recovered.
Disinfection protocols utilizing UV Smart D60 were as effective as the standard chemical disinfection protocol using Cidex OPA.
NA Laryngoscope, 133:3512-3519, 2023.