2018
DOI: 10.1016/j.injury.2018.09.006
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Reprocessing safety issues associated with complex-design orthopaedic loaned surgical instruments and implants

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
16
0
9

Year Published

2019
2019
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 26 publications
(25 citation statements)
references
References 14 publications
0
16
0
9
Order By: Relevance
“…1 implant tray with 164 pedicel screws 1. 3 types of contaminants: corrosion, saccharide of unknown origin, soap residue 2. observed reprocessing time was < 2 h Repeatedly reprocessed pedicle screws may be source of SSI Pinto et al (2010) [ 8 ] Surgical implants 227 samples (76 from clean surgeries, 76 from contaminated surgeries, 75 from infected surgeries) 47% microbial contamination of implants in clean surgeries, 70% in contaminated, and 80% in infected surgeries Most of the microorganisms recovered are covered by the cleaning and sterilization process; antibiotic prophylaxis is important in clean surgeries Lopes et al (2019) [ 9 ] FMRs and DGs 9 FMRs and 9 DGs (3 rinsing, 3 manual cleaning, 3 manual plus automated cleaning) 100% ATP contamination in rinsed only with 2–2.5 log 10 fold reduction after manual or manual plus automated cleaning; soil present in all groups Reusable surgical instruments show residual biological soil after reprocessing, which may have an adverse effect on patient outcome Costa et al (2018) [ 10 ] FMRs, DGs, and single-use screws in clinical use for > 1 year 73 FMRs (16 ATP, 8 CFU, 40 visual, 9 SEM), 19 DGs (8 ATP, 8 visual, 3 SEM), 123 screws (24 CFU, 90 visual, 9 SEM) 1. FMRs: 75% showed ATP, 85% visible soil, 63% protein after cleaning 2.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…1 implant tray with 164 pedicel screws 1. 3 types of contaminants: corrosion, saccharide of unknown origin, soap residue 2. observed reprocessing time was < 2 h Repeatedly reprocessed pedicle screws may be source of SSI Pinto et al (2010) [ 8 ] Surgical implants 227 samples (76 from clean surgeries, 76 from contaminated surgeries, 75 from infected surgeries) 47% microbial contamination of implants in clean surgeries, 70% in contaminated, and 80% in infected surgeries Most of the microorganisms recovered are covered by the cleaning and sterilization process; antibiotic prophylaxis is important in clean surgeries Lopes et al (2019) [ 9 ] FMRs and DGs 9 FMRs and 9 DGs (3 rinsing, 3 manual cleaning, 3 manual plus automated cleaning) 100% ATP contamination in rinsed only with 2–2.5 log 10 fold reduction after manual or manual plus automated cleaning; soil present in all groups Reusable surgical instruments show residual biological soil after reprocessing, which may have an adverse effect on patient outcome Costa et al (2018) [ 10 ] FMRs, DGs, and single-use screws in clinical use for > 1 year 73 FMRs (16 ATP, 8 CFU, 40 visual, 9 SEM), 19 DGs (8 ATP, 8 visual, 3 SEM), 123 screws (24 CFU, 90 visual, 9 SEM) 1. FMRs: 75% showed ATP, 85% visible soil, 63% protein after cleaning 2.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Similar results were shown by Costa et al who assessed 215 surgical instruments, which had been in clinical use for over a year, for residual ATP, protein, bacterial contamination, endotoxin and biofilm. After sterilization, biofilm and soil were still detectable by electron microscopy [10]. A study by Smith et al implicated that standard sterilization of cannulated drills may ineffectively sterilize cannulated drills and thus lead to bacterial contamination of these instruments [11].…”
Section: Preoperative Sources Of Implant Contaminationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…These researchers frequently observed inaccessible, dysfunctional and unmaintained autoclaves in LMIC healthcare facilities. As such, manual instrument cleaning is common in LMICs amid resource constraints but remains much less effective than automated cleaning (Costa et al, 2018; Oosthuysen et al, 2014). Inadequate cleaning has been associated with bioburden and debris retention (Fast et al, 2017) as well as biofilm formation, particularly in complex-design instruments that are impractical to clean manually (Costa et al, 2018).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Several authors highlighted consequential policy-practice gaps. Costa et al (2018) noted that policy standards in Brazil required only cleaning, and not necessarily disinfection and sterilisation, before returning loaned instrument sets. During SP training and mentoring programmes in Ethiopian and Tanzanian hospitals, Fast et al (2019aFast et al ( , 2019b found that workers were apprehensive about using enzymatic detergents or soapy water in place of corrosive 0.5% chlorine solutions, a recommendation in alignment with recent changes to WHO (WHO and PAHO, 2016) evidence-based guidelines.…”
Section: Challenges To Sterile Processing Practicementioning
confidence: 99%
“…El ciclo de vida de la descontaminación muestra las características más destacadas de ésta, en la que cada paso es tan importante como el siguiente. El ciclo de descontaminación del instrumental quirúrgico reusable es el siguiente: 8 1. Limpieza, 2.…”
Section: Descontaminación De Dispositivos Médicos E Instrumentos Quirúrgicosunclassified