Decontamination of Anesthesia Apparatus

Gross, Gilbert

doi:10.1097/00000542-195511000-00008

Cited by 11 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Elimination of the air from the reservoir bag was always incomplete also. DISCUSSION Joseph and Shay (1952) demonstrated high levels of contamination of breathing circuits with streptococci, and Gross (1955) and Rittenbury and Hench (1965) have shown contamination with a variety of pathogenic bacteria. Jenkins and Edgar (1964) showed that pathogens within a patient's respiratory tract readily contaminate anaesthetic equipment, and Henschel, Hollman and Just (1959) showed experimentally that bacteria in anaesthetic tubing could be transmitted to patients during anaesthesia.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 94%

A Critical Look at Chemical Disinfection of Anaesthetic Apparatus

George

1975

British Journal of Anaesthesia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Studies were carried out to test the efficacy of disinfection of a previously contaminated corrugated anaesthetic tube and reservoir bag. Bacteriological swabs and sampling with broth were evaluated as methods of detecting contamination. Gross contamination was detected by broth sampling on occasions when swabbing failed to reveal contamination. The presence of up to 18% by volume of residual air within the apparatus was detected. A method of ensuring elimination of all air is described and studies showed that disinfection was then complete.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 94%

A Critical Look at Chemical Disinfection of Anaesthetic Apparatus

George

1975

British Journal of Anaesthesia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Endotracheal Tube as a Source of Infection

Smith¹

1959

JAMA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Sterilization of Anesthesia Apparatus

Meeks¹,

Pembleton²,

Hench³

1967

JAMA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

THE importance of sterilization of anesthesia equipment and the relationship between contaminated equipment and subsequent infection has not been established.It has been recommended that since anesthesia equipment is exposed to a heavily contaminated area of the body meticulous care should be exercised in the handling and sterilization of apparatus.1 Other workers, however, have either failed to detect significant contamination in a considerable part of the apparatus2 or have concluded that it was unlikely that cross-infection would occur.3-5 Sterilization of anesthesia equipment presents a rather difficult problem. Although certain items can apparently be sterilized by satisfactory techniques, bulky rubber items do not lend themselves to these techniques, and, in addition, must be processed in considerable quantity to meet the demands of a busy operating schedule. Germicides which are effective against certain organisms under certain conditions may be unsatisfactory under other conditions. Chemicals which have been found to be good bactericidal agents may be unsatisfactory because they are corrosive. This study was undertaken to determine the extent and character of contamination of anesthe¬ sia equipment, and to determine the effectiveness of a new germicide, buffered glutaraldehyde.8 Method Face masks, breathing tubes, rebreathing bags, endotracheal tubes, and Y connectors used in anes¬ thesia for operations in two wings of the operating suite were cultured after use and again after clean¬ ing with one of the following routines.Routine A.-Face masks, breathing tubes, and rebreathing bags were thoroughly washed in hexachlorophene and water, and connectors and endo¬ tracheal tubes were cleaned by brushing with hexachlorophene and water. All items were then thoroughly rinsed and soaked in 70% ethyl alcohol for 20 minutes.Routine B.-The above routine of cleaning with hexachlorophene followed by rinsing was carried out, and then all items were soaked in a solution of buffered glutaraldhyde for ten minutes.Equipment used for operations in one wing of the operating suite was subjected to routine A and that of the other wing was subjected to routine B on any given day. On alternate days the order of cleaning was reversed. Equipment used in 100 op¬ erations was selected for the testing of each of the routines.Representative items of anesthesia equipment were selected. In the course of the experiment 100 samples were taken from face masks, 100 from breathing bags, and 100 from Y connectors, and 200 were taken from rebreathing tubes (since there are two tubes in each set) for each of the cleaning routines. The samples were taken after use and again after employing one of the cleaning routines. Since endotracheal techniques were not employed in all of the operations, fewer endotracheal tubes were available for the test.Sample equipment from five additional cases was processed with cleaning routine B, cultured, and stored in plastic bags previously sterilized with ethylene-oxide. At intervals of 6, 30, 54, 78, and 102 hour...

show abstract

Decontamination of Anesthesia Apparatus

Cited by 11 publications

References 0 publications

A Critical Look at Chemical Disinfection of Anaesthetic Apparatus

A Critical Look at Chemical Disinfection of Anaesthetic Apparatus

Endotracheal Tube as a Source of Infection

Sterilization of Anesthesia Apparatus

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About