Literature DB >> 28625700

The effectiveness of sterilization for flexible ureteroscopes: A real-world study.

Cori L Ofstead1, Otis L Heymann2, Mariah R Quick2, Ellen A Johnson2, John E Eiland2, Harry P Wetzler2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: There are no guidelines or quality benchmarks specific to ureteroscope reprocessing, and patient injuries and infections have been linked to ureteroscopes. This prospective study evaluated ureteroscope reprocessing effectiveness.
METHODS: Reprocessing practices at 2 institutions were assessed. Microbial cultures, biochemical tests, and visual inspections were conducted on sterilized ureteroscopes.
RESULTS: Researchers examined 16 ureteroscopes after manual cleaning and sterilization using hydrogen peroxide gas. Every ureteroscope had visible irregularities, such as discoloration, residual fluid, foamy white residue, scratches, or debris in channels. Tests detected contamination on 100% of ureteroscopes (microbial growth 13%, adenosine triphosphate 44%, hemoglobin 63%, and protein 100%). Contamination levels exceeded benchmarks for clean gastrointestinal endoscopes for hemoglobin (6%), adenosine triphosphate (6%), and protein (100%). A new, unused ureteroscope had hemoglobin and high protein levels after initial reprocessing, although no contamination was found before reprocessing.
CONCLUSIONS: Flexible ureteroscope reprocessing methods were insufficient and may have introduced contamination. The clinical implications of residual contamination and viable microbes found on sterilized ureteroscopes are unknown. Additional research is needed to evaluate the prevalence of suboptimal ureteroscope reprocessing, identify sources of contamination, and determine clinical implications of urinary tract exposure to reprocessing chemicals, organic residue, and bioburden. These findings reinforce the need for frequent audits of reprocessing practices and the routine use of cleaning verification tests and visual inspection as recommended in reprocessing guidelines.
Copyright © 2017 Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Borescope; Contamination; Cultures; Microbial; Reprocessing

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28625700     DOI: 10.1016/j.ajic.2017.03.016

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Infect Control        ISSN: 0196-6553            Impact factor:   2.918


  19 in total

Review 1.  Which flexible ureteroscope is the best for upper tract urothelial carcinoma treatment?

Authors:  Etienne Xavier Keller; Steeve Doizi; Luca Villa; Olivier Traxer
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2019-02-15       Impact factor: 4.226

2.  Comparative medico-economic study of reusable vs. single-use flexible ureteroscopes.

Authors:  Khalid Al-Balushi; Nathalie Martin; Hélène Loubon; Michael Baboudjian; Floriane Michel; Pierre-Clément Sichez; Thomas Martin; Eugénie Di-Crocco; Sarah Gaillet; Veronique Delaporte; Akram Akiki; Alice Faure; Gilles Karsenty; Eric Lechevallier; Romain Boissier
Journal:  Int Urol Nephrol       Date:  2019-07-17       Impact factor: 2.370

3.  Single-use versus reusable ureterorenoscopes for retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS): systematic comparative analysis of physical and optical properties in three different devices.

Authors:  Susanne Deininger; Luis Haberstock; Stephan Kruck; Eva Neumann; Ines Anselmo da Costa; Tilman Todenhöfer; Jens Bedke; Arnulf Stenzl; Steffen Rausch
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2018-06-05       Impact factor: 4.226

4.  Defining the Costs of Reusable Flexible Ureteroscope Reprocessing Using Time-Driven Activity-Based Costing.

Authors:  Dylan Isaacson; Tessnim Ahmad; Ian Metzler; David T Tzou; Kazumi Taguchi; Manint Usawachintachit; Samuel Zetumer; Benjamin Sherer; Marshall Stoller; Thomas Chi
Journal:  J Endourol       Date:  2017-09-20       Impact factor: 2.942

5.  WiScope® single use digital flexible ureteroscope versus reusable flexible ureteroscope for management of renal stones: a prospective randomized study.

Authors:  Ahmed I Ali; Amr Eldakhakhny; Abdelsalam Abdelfadel; Mahmoud F Rohiem; Mohamed Elbadry; Ali Hassan
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2022-07-27       Impact factor: 3.661

6.  Can the introduction of single-use flexible ureteroscopes increase the longevity of reusable flexible ureteroscopes at a high volume centre?

Authors:  Eugenio Ventimiglia; Niamh Smyth; Steeve Doizi; Alvaro Jiménez Godínez; Yazeed Barghouthy; Mariela Alejandra Corrales Acosta; Hatem Kamkoum; Bhaskar Somani; Olivier Traxer
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2021-08-23       Impact factor: 4.226

7.  A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Comparing the VivaSight Double-Lumen Tube and a Conventional Double-Lumen Tube in Adult Patients Undergoing Thoracic Surgery Involving One-Lung Ventilation.

Authors:  Sara Larsen; Jimmy Højberg Holm; Tove Nørgaard Sauer; Claus Andersen
Journal:  Pharmacoecon Open       Date:  2020-03

Review 8.  A comprehensive literature-based equation to compare cost-effectiveness of a flexible ureteroscopy program with single-use versus reusable devices.

Authors:  Giovanni S Marchini; Fábio C Torricelli; Carlos A Batagello; Manoj Monga; Fábio C Vicentini; Alexandre Danilovic; Miguel Srougi; William C Nahas; Eduardo Mazzucchi
Journal:  Int Braz J Urol       Date:  2019 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 1.541

9.  First clinical evaluation of the new single-use flexible and semirigid Pusen ureteroscopes.

Authors:  Esteban Emiliani; Asier Mercadé; Félix Millan; Francisco Sánchez-Martín; Cristian Andrés Konstantinidis; Oriol Angerri
Journal:  Cent European J Urol       Date:  2018-04-09

Review 10.  Prevention and management of urosepsis triggered by ureteroscopy.

Authors:  Kymora B Scotland; Dirk Lange
Journal:  Res Rep Urol       Date:  2018-07-05
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.