Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-15T01:50:32.005Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Manual Methods Are Suboptimal Compared With Automated Methods for Cleaning of Single-Use Biopsy Forceps

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 June 2016

M. J. Alfa ,
R. Nemes ,
N. Olson  and
A. Mulaire
M. J. Alfa*
Affiliation:
Department of Medical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, St. Boniface Research Centre, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
R. Nemes
Affiliation:
Department of Pharmacy, Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan
N. Olson
Affiliation:
Department of Medical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, St. Boniface Research Centre, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
A. Mulaire
Affiliation:
Department of Medical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, St. Boniface Research Centre, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
*
Microbiology Lab, St. Boniface General Hospital, 409 Tache Ave, Winnipeg, Manitoba, CanadaR2H 2A6 (malfa@sbgh.mb.ca)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective.

Most reusable biopsy forceps and all of the currently available single-use biopsy forceps do not have a port that allows fluid flow down the inner tubular shaft of the device. Reusable biopsy forceps are widely used and reprocessed in healthcare facilities, and single-use biopsy forceps are reprocessed either in-house (eg, in Canada and Japan) or by third-party reprocessors (eg, in the United States). The objective of this study was to determine the cleaning efficacy of automated narrow-lumen sonic irrigation cleaning, sonication-only cleaning, and manual cleaning for biopsy forceps.

Design.

A simulated-use study was performed by inoculating the inner channel of single-use biopsy forceps with artificial test soil containing both Enterococcus faecalis and Geobacillus stearothermophilus at concentrations of 106 colony-forming units per milliliter. The cleaning methods evaluated were manual cleaning, sonication-only cleaning, and “retroflush” cleaning by an automated narrow-lumen irrigator. Bioburden and organic soil reduction after washing was evaluated. Forceps used in biopsies of patients were also tested to determine the worst-case soiling levels.

Results.

Only retroflush irrigation cleaning could effectively remove material from within the shaft portion of the biopsy forceps: it achieved an average reduction of more than 95% in levels of protein, hemoglobin, carbohydrate, and endotoxin. However, even this method of cleaning was not totally effective, as only a 2 log10 reduction in bioburden could be achieved, and there were low residual levels of hemoglobin and carbohydrate.

Conclusion.

The data from this evaluation indicate that manual and sonication-only cleaning methods for biopsy forceps were totally ineffective in removing material from within the biopsy forceps. Even the use of retroflush cleaning was not totally effective. These findings suggest that in-hospital reprocessing of biopsy forceps with currently available equipment and cleaning methods is suboptimal.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 27 , Issue 8 , August 2006 , pp. 842 - 846
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America 2006

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Position statement: multi-society guideline for reprocessing flexible gastrointestinal endoscopes. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy 2003; 58:1–8 Google Scholar
2. American National Standard Institute (ANSI). Safe handling and biological decontamination of medical devices in health care facilities and in nonclinical settings. Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation (AAMI). ANSI/AAMI ST35. Washington, DC: AAMI; 1996:1–15.Google Scholar
3. Ogoshi, K. Working party report: care of endoscopes: reprocessing of gastrointestinal endoscopic accessories. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2000; 15: G82–G85.Google Scholar
4. Alvarado, CJ, Reichelderfer, M, APIC guideline for infection prevention and control in flexible endoscopy. Am J Infect Control 2000; 28:138–155.Google Scholar
5. Ahuja, V, Tandon, RK. Working party report: care of endoscopes: survey of gastrointestinal endoscope disinfection and accessory reprocessing practices in the Asia-Pacific region. J Gostroenterol Hepatol 2000; 15:G78–G81.Google Scholar
6. Miller, M, Gravel, D, Paton, S. Reuse of single-use medical devices in Canadian acute-care health facilities. Paper presented at Canadian Association of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Conference; November 5-8, 2001; Victoria, Canada.Google Scholar
7. Canadian Healthcare Association (CHA). The reuse of single-use medical devices— guidelines for healthcare facilities. Ottawa, Ontario: CHA Press; 1996.Google Scholar
8. Furman, PJ. Third-party reprocessing of endoscopic accessories. In: Gostrointestinal Endoscopy Clinics of North America 2000; 10:385–392.Google Scholar
9. Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation (AAMI). Designing, testing, and labeling reusable medical devices for reprocessing in health care facilities: a guide for device manufacturers. AAMI Technical Information Report No. 12. Arlington, VA: AAMI; 1994.Google Scholar
10. Alfa, MJ. Medical-device reprocessing. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2000; 21:496–498.Google Scholar
11. Wilcox, CM. Methodology of reprocessing one-time use accessories: endoscopic disinfection and reprocessing of endoscopic accessories. In: Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Clinics of North America 2000; 2:379–384.Google Scholar
12. Alfa, MJ, DeGagne, P, Olson, N. Worst-case soiling levels for patient-used flexible endoscopes before and after cleaning. Am J Infect Control 1999; 27:392–401.Google Scholar
13. Alfa, MJ, Jackson, M. A new hydrogen peroxide-based medical device detergent with germicidal properties: comparison with enzymatic cleaners. Am J Infect Control 2001; 29:1–10.Google Scholar
14. Alfa, MJ, Nemes, R. Inadequacy of manual cleaning for reprocessing single-use, triple-lumen sphincterotomes: simulated-use testing comparing manual with automated cleaning methods. Am J Infect Control 2003; 31: 193–207.Google Scholar
15. Lui, E, Lau, YL, Chau, YK, Pacepavicius, G. Simple technique for estimation of biofilm accumulation. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 1994; 53:913–918.Google Scholar
16. Merritt, K, Hitchins, VM, Brown, SA. Safety and cleaning of medical materials and devices. J Biomed Mater Res 2000; 53:131–136.3.0.CO;2-I>CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17. Cowen, AE. The clinical risks of infection associated with endoscopy. Can J Gastroenterol 2001; 15:321–331.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18. Leonard, DL, Mills, SE. Comparison of automated instrument cleaning: preliminary results. Infect Control Steril Technol 1997:20-28.Google Scholar
19. Gilbert, P, McBain, AJ. Biofilms: their impact on health and their recalcitrance toward biocides. Am J Infect Control 2001; 29:252–255.Google Scholar
20. Feigel, DW, Hughes, JM. FDA and CDC public health advisory: infections from endoscopes inadequately reprocessed by an automated endoscope reprocessing system. Letter 1999. Available at: http://www.fda.gov/dcrh/safety/endoreprocess.html. Accessed July 14, 2006.Google Scholar
21. Marshburn, PB, Rutala, WA, Wannamaker, NS, Hulka, JF. Gas and steam sterilization of assembled versus disassembled laparoscopic equipment: microbiologic studies. J Reprod Med 1991; 36:483–487.Google Scholar