BACKGROUND: Surgical site infection is a well-documented complication of surgery. While contact with fomites represents a recognised source of contamination, electrostatic charge can cause contamination without surface contact as shown in previous studies evaluating operating room equipment. In cases requiring fluoroscopy, an intraoperative X-ray method, it is common for a surgeon to point to the associated monitor, particularly when teaching. This close proximity without direct contact poses a theoretical risk of contamination due to potential electrostatic forces. AIM/ OBJECTIVE: To assess whether a gloved finger could be contaminated by a fluoroscopy monitor without direct contact. METHODS: Using a laser-guided level, a sterile, gloved finger was traversed side-to-side, top-to-bottom, across a fluoroscopy monitor used during surgery at distances of 1 cm, 2 cm, 4 cm and 8 cm. Two negative controls and a positive control were collected for comparison. Specimens were inoculated onto agar plates and incubated for 48 h at 37 °C. Following incubation, samples were analysed for growth and the number of colonies was recorded. This was repeated during 10 randomly selected operative cases using fluoroscopy for a total of 70 samples. RESULTS: No bacterial growth was identified as a result of inoculation on any of the 70 experimental or control specimens. DISCUSSION: We conclude that the practice of pointing to a fluoroscopy monitor for educational or other purposes is unlikely to increase the risk of glove contamination.
BACKGROUND: Surgical site infection is a well-documented complication of surgery. While contact with fomites represents a recognised source of contamination, electrostatic charge can cause contamination without surface contact as shown in previous studies evaluating operating room equipment. In cases requiring fluoroscopy, an intraoperative X-ray method, it is common for a surgeon to point to the associated monitor, particularly when teaching. This close proximity without direct contact poses a theoretical risk of contamination due to potential electrostatic forces. AIM/ OBJECTIVE: To assess whether a gloved finger could be contaminated by a fluoroscopy monitor without direct contact. METHODS: Using a laser-guided level, a sterile, gloved finger was traversed side-to-side, top-to-bottom, across a fluoroscopy monitor used during surgery at distances of 1 cm, 2 cm, 4 cm and 8 cm. Two negative controls and a positive control were collected for comparison. Specimens were inoculated onto agar plates and incubated for 48 h at 37 °C. Following incubation, samples were analysed for growth and the number of colonies was recorded. This was repeated during 10 randomly selected operative cases using fluoroscopy for a total of 70 samples. RESULTS: No bacterial growth was identified as a result of inoculation on any of the 70 experimental or control specimens. DISCUSSION: We conclude that the practice of pointing to a fluoroscopy monitor for educational or other purposes is unlikely to increase the risk of glove contamination.
Authors: Debdut Biswas; Jesse E Bible; Peter G Whang; Andrew K Simpson; Jonathan N Grauer Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2008-08-01 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Kristen A Ban; Joseph P Minei; Christine Laronga; Brian G Harbrecht; Eric H Jensen; Donald E Fry; Kamal M F Itani; E Patchen Dellinger; Clifford Y Ko; Therese M Duane Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2016-11-30 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: Grigory E Gershkovich; Nathan C Tiedeken; David Hampton; Ross Budacki; Solomon P Samuel; Minn Saing Journal: J Orthop Trauma Date: 2016-10 Impact factor: 2.512
Authors: Paul G Peters; Richard T Laughlin; Ronald J Markert; David B Nelles; Kyle L Randall; Michael J Prayson Journal: Surg Infect (Larchmt) Date: 2012-03-22 Impact factor: 2.150
Authors: Simon J Shepherd; Clive B Beggs; Caroline F Smith; Kevin G Kerr; Catherine J Noakes; P Andrew Sleigh Journal: BMC Infect Dis Date: 2010-04-12 Impact factor: 3.090