Unseen threats: Lumens 2.0 study reveals the hidden challenges of cleaning lumened surgical instruments.

IF 3.8 3区 医学 Q2 INFECTIOUS DISEASES American journal of infection control Pub Date : 2025-02-12 DOI:10.1016/j.ajic.2025.02.003
Cori L Ofstead, Abigail G Smart, Jill E Holdsworth, Brandon M Gantt, Larry A Lamb, Kevin M Bush
{"title":"Unseen threats: Lumens 2.0 study reveals the hidden challenges of cleaning lumened surgical instruments.","authors":"Cori L Ofstead, Abigail G Smart, Jill E Holdsworth, Brandon M Gantt, Larry A Lamb, Kevin M Bush","doi":"10.1016/j.ajic.2025.02.003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Surgical site infections can cause significant morbidity requiring lengthy antimicrobial treatment. Infections have been linked to surgical instruments with retained tissue and foreign debris, as the presence of blood or soil interferes with sterilization effectiveness. This study aimed to determine the prevalence of visible soil or debris inside instruments and evaluate the impact of recleaning efforts.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Borescopes were used to inspect lumens of instruments used for orthopedic, neurologic, or ear-nose-throat procedures. Whenever visible soil or debris was observed, the instrument was recleaned up to 3 times and reinspected to assess the impact of additional cleaning.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Researchers performed 117 inspections (40 unique instruments, 77 reinspections). All instruments had complex lumens that impede access by brushes. Debris and discoloration or residues were observed inside 100% of instruments, with rusty patches in 95%. Some soil was removed by recleaning, but visible soil remained in most lumens and fragments of lint or brush bristles were visible upon repeat inspection.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Cleaning in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions was not effective for lumened surgical instruments. Solutions will require collaboration between infection prevention, sterile processing, and manufacturers to evaluate risk and develop strategies for improving processing outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":7621,"journal":{"name":"American journal of infection control","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American journal of infection control","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajic.2025.02.003","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"INFECTIOUS DISEASES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Surgical site infections can cause significant morbidity requiring lengthy antimicrobial treatment. Infections have been linked to surgical instruments with retained tissue and foreign debris, as the presence of blood or soil interferes with sterilization effectiveness. This study aimed to determine the prevalence of visible soil or debris inside instruments and evaluate the impact of recleaning efforts.

Methods: Borescopes were used to inspect lumens of instruments used for orthopedic, neurologic, or ear-nose-throat procedures. Whenever visible soil or debris was observed, the instrument was recleaned up to 3 times and reinspected to assess the impact of additional cleaning.

Results: Researchers performed 117 inspections (40 unique instruments, 77 reinspections). All instruments had complex lumens that impede access by brushes. Debris and discoloration or residues were observed inside 100% of instruments, with rusty patches in 95%. Some soil was removed by recleaning, but visible soil remained in most lumens and fragments of lint or brush bristles were visible upon repeat inspection.

Conclusions: Cleaning in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions was not effective for lumened surgical instruments. Solutions will require collaboration between infection prevention, sterile processing, and manufacturers to evaluate risk and develop strategies for improving processing outcomes.

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
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.40
自引率
4.10%
发文量
479
审稿时长
24 days
期刊介绍: AJIC covers key topics and issues in infection control and epidemiology. Infection control professionals, including physicians, nurses, and epidemiologists, rely on AJIC for peer-reviewed articles covering clinical topics as well as original research. As the official publication of the Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology (APIC)
期刊最新文献
Healthcare-associated infections and antimicrobial use: the third point prevalence survey on 42 acute care hospitals in Piedmont, Italy, 2022. Table of Contents Editorial Board APIC Masthead Information for Readers
×
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