Sterile Instrument Storage in an Austere Environment: Are Sterile Peel Packaging and Cellulose Wrapping Equivalent?

Nathan Lanham, Christopher M Belyea, David Marcello, Allan B Wataka, Lillian Musila
{"title":"Sterile Instrument Storage in an Austere Environment: Are Sterile Peel Packaging and Cellulose Wrapping Equivalent?","authors":"Nathan Lanham, Christopher M Belyea, David Marcello, Allan B Wataka, Lillian Musila","doi":"10.55460/EB2S-XTB5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Recommendations for optimal temperature and humidity for sterile instrument storage vary according to different sources. Furthermore, there are limited data comparing methods of packing smaller, lightweight, low-profile instruments. The purpose of this study was to compare sterile peel packaging and sterile cellulose wrapping for sterile instrument storage in an austere environment characterized by elevated temperature and humidity.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Stainless steel screws were sterilized and stored in either sterile peel packaging, sterile cellulose wrapping, or no packaging. Four groups were evaluated. Group 1 consisted of four screws in a sterile peelpack envelope and served as a time-zero control. Group 2 consisted of two groups of five screws, each packaged with blue sterilization cellulose wrap. Group 3 consisted of two groups of five screws, each packaged in sterile peel-pack envelopes. Group 4 consisted of 10 non-sterile unpackaged screws, which served as controls. Screws from groups 2, 3, and 4 were then cultured for 6 and 12 weeks. Temperature and humidity values were recorded in the instrument storage area.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Average temperature was 21.3°C (SD 1.2°C; range 18.9°C-27.2°C) and average humidity was 51.7% (SD 3.9%; range 39%- 70%). Groups 1 (time-zero control) and 2 (sterile cellulose wrapping) demonstrated no growth. After 6 and 12 weeks, groups 3 (sterile peel packaging) and 4 (control) demonstrated bacterial growth.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The most common culture isolates were gram-positive rods and two common nosocomial Staphylococcius species. Sterile peel packaging was not found to be equivalent to sterile cellulose wrapping in austere environmental conditions.</p>","PeriodicalId":53630,"journal":{"name":"Journal of special operations medicine : a peer reviewed journal for SOF medical professionals","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of special operations medicine : a peer reviewed journal for SOF medical professionals","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.55460/EB2S-XTB5","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Recommendations for optimal temperature and humidity for sterile instrument storage vary according to different sources. Furthermore, there are limited data comparing methods of packing smaller, lightweight, low-profile instruments. The purpose of this study was to compare sterile peel packaging and sterile cellulose wrapping for sterile instrument storage in an austere environment characterized by elevated temperature and humidity.

Methods: Stainless steel screws were sterilized and stored in either sterile peel packaging, sterile cellulose wrapping, or no packaging. Four groups were evaluated. Group 1 consisted of four screws in a sterile peelpack envelope and served as a time-zero control. Group 2 consisted of two groups of five screws, each packaged with blue sterilization cellulose wrap. Group 3 consisted of two groups of five screws, each packaged in sterile peel-pack envelopes. Group 4 consisted of 10 non-sterile unpackaged screws, which served as controls. Screws from groups 2, 3, and 4 were then cultured for 6 and 12 weeks. Temperature and humidity values were recorded in the instrument storage area.

Results: Average temperature was 21.3°C (SD 1.2°C; range 18.9°C-27.2°C) and average humidity was 51.7% (SD 3.9%; range 39%- 70%). Groups 1 (time-zero control) and 2 (sterile cellulose wrapping) demonstrated no growth. After 6 and 12 weeks, groups 3 (sterile peel packaging) and 4 (control) demonstrated bacterial growth.

Conclusion: The most common culture isolates were gram-positive rods and two common nosocomial Staphylococcius species. Sterile peel packaging was not found to be equivalent to sterile cellulose wrapping in austere environmental conditions.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
严酷环境中的无菌器械储存:无菌剥离包装和纤维素包装是否等同?
背景:无菌器械储存的最佳温度和湿度建议因来源不同而各异。此外,比较小型、轻便、低调器械的包装方法的数据也很有限。本研究的目的是比较无菌果皮包装和无菌纤维素包装在温度和湿度升高的严酷环境中储存无菌器械的方法:方法:对不锈钢螺钉进行灭菌处理,然后分别用无菌去皮包装、无菌纤维素包装或无包装进行储存。评估分为四组。第 1 组包括装在无菌去皮包装袋中的四颗螺钉,作为时间零对照。第 2 组包括两组,每组 5 颗螺钉,均使用蓝色灭菌纤维素包装。第 3 组包括两组,每组五颗螺钉,用无菌剥离包装袋包装。第 4 组包括 10 颗未经消毒的无包装螺钉,作为对照组。然后将第 2、3 和 4 组的螺钉分别培养 6 周和 12 周。记录器械存放区的温度和湿度值:平均温度为 21.3°C(标准差为 1.2°C;范围为 18.9°C-27.2°C),平均湿度为 51.7%(标准差为 3.9%;范围为 39%-70%)。第 1 组(时间为零的对照组)和第 2 组(无菌纤维素包裹)没有出现生长现象。6 周和 12 周后,第 3 组(无菌果皮包装)和第 4 组(对照组)出现细菌生长:最常见的培养分离物是革兰氏阳性杆菌和两种常见的鼻腔葡萄球菌。在严酷的环境条件下,无菌果皮包装并不等同于无菌纤维素包装。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
91
期刊最新文献
Limitations of Triage in Military Mass Casualty Response: A Case Series. REBOA Use in a Medicalized Prehospital Setting Proposal for a First Protocol Based on the Delphi Method. Military Medical Student Specialty Preferences During the DHA Transition: A Retrospective Analysis. The Effect of Radiological Assessment of Volunteers for French Paratrooper Training A Five-Year Retrospective Study. Vascular Repair in Wartime Casualties.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1