A Response to the Validity of an Article Reporting Contrary Cleaning Efficacy Results for Robotic Surgical Instruments

Wallace, Brian H

doi:10.1017/ice.2017.29

Cited by 3 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…To the Editor-We acknowledge the letter by Wallace. 1 We are greatly concerned by the fact that the opposite opinion was raised by the principal scientist of the manufacturer of the da Vinci Surgical System. Before our discussion, it should be recognized that the author's argument might be intrinsically biased from the commercial standpoint.…”

Section: Concerns Associated With Cleaning Robotic Surgical Instrumenmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…2 The author claimed that negative controls could interfere through residues from the manufacturing process. 1 However, the effects could be minimized by 3 reprocessing cycles, as employed in previous studies. 3,5 The robotic instruments we assessed for residual protein had undergone 10 reprocessing cycles followed by 10 clinical uses.…”

Section: Consideration Of Experimental Protocolmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The author assumed that the iron and tungsten particles were released in the ultrasonication process and influenced the results in the bicinchoninic acid assay. 1 However, this assumption is not true according to the manufacturer's instructions for the assay kit we used. The author also stated that 30-minute ultrasonication was harsh and could result in instrument damage.…”

Section: Consideration Of Experimental Protocolmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The author also stated that 30-minute ultrasonication was harsh and could result in instrument damage. 1 However, it is necessary to clean instruments for a total of 150 minutes of ultrasonication prior to each set of 10 consecutive uses, according to the manufacturer's instructions. It seems that this claim was only made to find fault with our study.…”

Section: Consideration Of Experimental Protocolmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The author was concerned that the water volume for extraction was too large in our study. 1 This claim is not correct because the volume of extraction fluid does not influence the results when the measurement procedure is performed appropriately. On the contrary, it was necessary for the water volume to be sufficient to fill the lumens and cavities inside the instruments for the whole surface of robotic instruments to have direct contact with the extraction fluids.…”

Section: Consideration Of Experimental Protocolmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Concerns Associated With Cleaning Robotic Surgical Instruments—Response to Wallace

Saito

Yasuhara

Murakoshi

et al. 2017

Infect. Control Hosp. Epidemiol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

models to address data sparsity, such as multivariate models, but the individual data are needed. Hence, we suggest that Walsh et al reanalyze their adjusted association between previous MRSA carriage and SSIs using the efficient method introduced here to report a more valid and precise measure of association. acknowledgments Financial support: No financial support was provided relevant to this article.

show abstract

Section: Concerns Associated With Cleaning Robotic Surgical Instrumenmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Consideration Of Experimental Protocolmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Consideration Of Experimental Protocolmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Consideration Of Experimental Protocolmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Consideration Of Experimental Protocolmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations