Harumi Koibuchi1, Shunji Hayashi2, Kazuhiko Kotani1, Yasutomo Fujii1, Kei Konno1, Yoshikazu Hirai3, Nobuyuki Taniguchi1. 1. Department of Clinical Laboratory Medicine, Jichi Medical University, Tochigi, Japan. 2. Department of Infection and Immunity, Jichi Medical University, 3311-1 Yakushiji, Shimotsuke, Tochigi, 329-0498, Japan. shunhaya@jichi.ac.jp. 3. Department of Infection and Immunity, Jichi Medical University, 3311-1 Yakushiji, Shimotsuke, Tochigi, 329-0498, Japan.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To determine suitable methods for evaluating bacterial contamination of ultrasound probes. METHODS: We compared probe imprinting, swab streaking, and swab suspension methods for evaluating bacterial contamination of ultrasound probes. RESULTS: Experimental and clinical investigations showed that the sensitivity for detecting bacterial contamination of ultrasound probes was higher with probe imprinting than with swab methods. Probe imprinting was very simple and required only agar plates. CONCLUSION: Probe imprinting was the most suitable method for evaluating bacterial contamination of ultrasound probes.
PURPOSE: To determine suitable methods for evaluating bacterial contamination of ultrasound probes. METHODS: We compared probe imprinting, swab streaking, and swab suspension methods for evaluating bacterial contamination of ultrasound probes. RESULTS: Experimental and clinical investigations showed that the sensitivity for detecting bacterial contamination of ultrasound probes was higher with probe imprinting than with swab methods. Probe imprinting was very simple and required only agar plates. CONCLUSION: Probe imprinting was the most suitable method for evaluating bacterial contamination of ultrasound probes.
Authors: Cesar H Guinto; Edward J Bottone; John T Raffalli; Marisa A Montecalvo; Gary P Wormser Journal: Am J Infect Control Date: 2002-12 Impact factor: 2.918