Yuhei Saito1, Hiroyoshi Kobayashi2, Yushi Uetera3, Hiroshi Yasuhara3, Takumi Kajiura4, Takashi Okubo2. 1. Surgical Center, The University of Tokyo Hospital, Tokyo, Japan; Division of Infection Prevention and Control, Tokyo Healthcare University Postgraduate School, Tokyo, Japan. Electronic address: saitoyu-nur@h.u-tokyo.ac.jp. 2. Division of Infection Prevention and Control, Tokyo Healthcare University Postgraduate School, Tokyo, Japan. 3. Surgical Center, The University of Tokyo Hospital, Tokyo, Japan. 4. Division of Infection Prevention and Control, Tokyo Healthcare University Postgraduate School, Tokyo, Japan; Research and Development Division, Yoshida Pharmaceutical Co, Ltd, Tokyo, Japan.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to determine the risk of contamination of surgical instruments according to the type of instrument and the surgical procedure. METHODS: Microbiologic examination was conducted on 140 pairs of forceps used in 24 elective laparotomies. These included 60 pairs of tissue forceps and 80 pairs of DeBakey forceps. Microbes on their surface were recovered using a membrane filter method. Adenosine triphosphate assay was also performed simultaneously in each pair of forceps. RESULTS: A total of 66 strains of microbes was recovered from 44 collected instruments (31%), with microbial counts ranging from 0 to 296 colony-forming units. Among the recovered microbes, gram-positive cocci were dominant [corrected]. The remaining microbes included 6 strains of gram-positive rods and 4 strains of gram-negative rods. The most common organism was Staphylococcus epidermidis, followed by S hominis and S warneri. Residual adenosine triphosphate was not correlated with the number of recovered microbes. CONCLUSION: Surgical instruments tend to be contaminated during operations by microbes that inhabit the skin and organs. Surgical instruments could act as fomites for the pathogens of surgical site infection even if the surgical field is not apparently contaminated, through application of appropriate practices adhering to surgical site infection guidelines.
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to determine the risk of contamination of surgical instruments according to the type of instrument and the surgical procedure. METHODS: Microbiologic examination was conducted on 140 pairs of forceps used in 24 elective laparotomies. These included 60 pairs of tissue forceps and 80 pairs of DeBakey forceps. Microbes on their surface were recovered using a membrane filter method. Adenosine triphosphate assay was also performed simultaneously in each pair of forceps. RESULTS: A total of 66 strains of microbes was recovered from 44 collected instruments (31%), with microbial counts ranging from 0 to 296 colony-forming units. Among the recovered microbes, gram-positive cocci were dominant [corrected]. The remaining microbes included 6 strains of gram-positive rods and 4 strains of gram-negative rods. The most common organism was Staphylococcus epidermidis, followed by S hominis and S warneri. Residual adenosine triphosphate was not correlated with the number of recovered microbes. CONCLUSION: Surgical instruments tend to be contaminated during operations by microbes that inhabit the skin and organs. Surgical instruments could act as fomites for the pathogens of surgical site infection even if the surgical field is not apparently contaminated, through application of appropriate practices adhering to surgical site infection guidelines.
Authors: Gessica Giusto; Clara Tramuta; Vittorio Caramello; Francesco Comino; Patrizia Nebbia; Patrizia Robino; Ellen Singer; Elena Grego; Marco Gandini Journal: Can J Vet Res Date: 2017-01 Impact factor: 1.310
Authors: Faysal A Yafi; James Furr; Farouk M El-Khatib; Koenraad van Renterghem; Luca Venturino; Robert Andrianne; Daniar Osmonov; David Ralph; Javier Romero Otero; Maxime Sempels; Georgios Hatzichristodoulou; Aaron Lentz; Steven K Wilson Journal: Int J Impot Res Date: 2020-03-18 Impact factor: 2.896
Authors: Jean Boubour; Katherine Jenson; Hannah Richter; Josiah Yarbrough; Z Maria Oden; Douglas A Schuler Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-03-23 Impact factor: 3.240