UV light-based decontamination: an effective and fast way for disinfection of endoscopes in otorhinolaryngology?
Disinfection
Endoscopes
Otorhinolaryngology
Reprocessing
UV disinfection
UV light
Journal
European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery
ISSN: 1434-4726
Titre abrégé: Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 9002937
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Aug 2020
Aug 2020
Historique:
received:
11
03
2020
accepted:
10
04
2020
pubmed:
3
5
2020
medline:
28
4
2021
entrez:
3
5
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Reprocessing of endoscopes becomes increasingly complex, due to rising demands of hygiene. Established methods are often expensive/time-consuming. Recent studies suggest beneficial aspects of disinfection by UV light. In this study we analyzed the efficiency of UV light disinfection of rigid otorhinolaryngological endoscopes. After mechanical pre-cleaning, the endoscopes were decontaminated for 25 s in the D25 using Impelux™ UV C light technology (UV Smart B.V., Delft, The Netherlands). First, the surface contact samples were taken from 50 used endoscopes to evaluate the bacterial load. Additionally, surface contact samples were taken from further 50 used endoscopes after reprocessing with the D25. Another 50 endoscopes were tested on protein residuals. Furthermore, the absolute effectiveness of the D25 was tested on 50 test bodies (RAMS) with a standardized contamination of 10 The used endoscopes showed a high bacterial contamination with an average value of 66.908 (± 239.215) CFU. After reprocessing, only a minimal contamination on 10% (n = 5) of the endoscopes with a mean value of 0.12 CFU (± 0.39) was found, resulting in a log-5 reduction in a clinical environment. The documented bacteria were components of the normal skin flora. All tested endoscopes were practically protein-free (< 1 μg). Furthermore, the average absolute germ reduction of the D25 was about 10 The D25 UV light system seems to be an effective device for the reprocessing of rigid ORL endoscopes, and therefore, might be suitable for the usage in clinical practice on site.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Reprocessing of endoscopes becomes increasingly complex, due to rising demands of hygiene. Established methods are often expensive/time-consuming. Recent studies suggest beneficial aspects of disinfection by UV light. In this study we analyzed the efficiency of UV light disinfection of rigid otorhinolaryngological endoscopes.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
METHODS
After mechanical pre-cleaning, the endoscopes were decontaminated for 25 s in the D25 using Impelux™ UV C light technology (UV Smart B.V., Delft, The Netherlands). First, the surface contact samples were taken from 50 used endoscopes to evaluate the bacterial load. Additionally, surface contact samples were taken from further 50 used endoscopes after reprocessing with the D25. Another 50 endoscopes were tested on protein residuals. Furthermore, the absolute effectiveness of the D25 was tested on 50 test bodies (RAMS) with a standardized contamination of 10
RESULTS
RESULTS
The used endoscopes showed a high bacterial contamination with an average value of 66.908 (± 239.215) CFU. After reprocessing, only a minimal contamination on 10% (n = 5) of the endoscopes with a mean value of 0.12 CFU (± 0.39) was found, resulting in a log-5 reduction in a clinical environment. The documented bacteria were components of the normal skin flora. All tested endoscopes were practically protein-free (< 1 μg). Furthermore, the average absolute germ reduction of the D25 was about 10
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
The D25 UV light system seems to be an effective device for the reprocessing of rigid ORL endoscopes, and therefore, might be suitable for the usage in clinical practice on site.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32358650
doi: 10.1007/s00405-020-05978-w
pii: 10.1007/s00405-020-05978-w
pmc: PMC7335372
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
2363-2369Références
Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2011 Aug;32(8):737-42
pubmed: 21768755
Health Devices. 2007 Nov;36(11):352-61
pubmed: 18543530
Photodermatol Photoimmunol Photomed. 2014 Apr-Jun;30(2-3):153-9
pubmed: 24313558
Environ Sci Technol. 2014 Jun 17;48(12):6743-53
pubmed: 24840005
Indian J Med Microbiol. 2008 Jul-Sep;26(3):241-2
pubmed: 18695322
Photodiagnosis Photodyn Ther. 2020 Mar;29:101544
pubmed: 31454717
Am J Infect Control. 1983 Jun;11(3):97-120
pubmed: 6309037
Am J Infect Control. 2015 Apr 1;43(4):415-7
pubmed: 25681301
Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1996 Mar;17(3):183-7
pubmed: 8708362
Am J Infect Control. 2016 Mar 1;44(3):299-303
pubmed: 26684369
Endosc Int Open. 2015 Aug;3(4):E259-65
pubmed: 26355428
Otolaryngol Clin North Am. 2005 Dec;38(6):1327-38
pubmed: 16326188
Cell Death Dis. 2017 Mar 9;8(3):e2664
pubmed: 28277539
Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforschung Gesundheitsschutz. 2012 Oct;55(10):1244-310
pubmed: 23011095
Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2010 Oct;31(10):1025-9
pubmed: 20804377
Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2018 Jan;39(1):20-31
pubmed: 29144223
Am J Rhinol. 1997 Mar-Apr;11(2):177-80
pubmed: 9129762
Am J Infect Control. 2015 Aug;43(8):878-81
pubmed: 26014583
Pol J Microbiol. 2016;65(1):23-32
pubmed: 27281991
Burns. 2017 Mar;43(2):388-396
pubmed: 28341262
Am J Infect Control. 2014 Jun;42(6):586-90
pubmed: 24837107
Curr Opin Infect Dis. 2008 Aug;21(4):362-6
pubmed: 18594287