Bacterial contamination of protective lead garments in an operating room setting.
PLG
Protective lead garments
aprons
bacterial contamination
thyroid shield
Journal
Journal of infection prevention
ISSN: 1757-1774
Titre abrégé: J Infect Prev
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101469725
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Nov 2020
Nov 2020
Historique:
received:
24
12
2019
accepted:
12
07
2020
entrez:
7
1
2021
pubmed:
8
1
2021
medline:
8
1
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Protective lead garments (PLG) worn in the operating room are a potential source for bacterial colonisation and thus may increase the risk of intraoperative infection. The clinical significance of such bacterial contamination has yet been established. Although disinfection protocols have been employed, their effectiveness is also unknown. We sought to describe and compare the bacterial profile of PLGs with a focus on common pathogens involved in surgical site infections (SSI) and prosthetic joint infections (PJI). We studied body aprons and neck-thyroid protective shields. We sampled 20 body aprons and 21 neck PLGs, swabbing the inside and outside of the PLGs. Swabs were cultured on different media and the results were assessed and compared. Of PLGs, 87.8% were contaminated. The neck-thyroid shield PLGs was generally more contaminated than body apron PLGs and exhibited significantly higher loads of PLGs are heavily contaminated despite regular cleaning protocols. Neck PLGs are highly contaminated with potentially infectious agents. As neck PLGs are often directly exposed above the surgical sterile gown and the surgical field, measures should be undertaken to reduce their exposure and bacterial load, perhaps by suggesting users consider avoiding the use of intraoperative fluoroscopy when possible or alternatively supporting the use of body exhaust suits when PLGs are needed.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Protective lead garments (PLG) worn in the operating room are a potential source for bacterial colonisation and thus may increase the risk of intraoperative infection. The clinical significance of such bacterial contamination has yet been established. Although disinfection protocols have been employed, their effectiveness is also unknown.
OBJECTIVE
OBJECTIVE
We sought to describe and compare the bacterial profile of PLGs with a focus on common pathogens involved in surgical site infections (SSI) and prosthetic joint infections (PJI).
METHODS
METHODS
We studied body aprons and neck-thyroid protective shields. We sampled 20 body aprons and 21 neck PLGs, swabbing the inside and outside of the PLGs. Swabs were cultured on different media and the results were assessed and compared.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Of PLGs, 87.8% were contaminated. The neck-thyroid shield PLGs was generally more contaminated than body apron PLGs and exhibited significantly higher loads of
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
PLGs are heavily contaminated despite regular cleaning protocols. Neck PLGs are highly contaminated with potentially infectious agents. As neck PLGs are often directly exposed above the surgical sterile gown and the surgical field, measures should be undertaken to reduce their exposure and bacterial load, perhaps by suggesting users consider avoiding the use of intraoperative fluoroscopy when possible or alternatively supporting the use of body exhaust suits when PLGs are needed.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33408761
doi: 10.1177/1757177420947466
pii: 10.1177_1757177420947466
pmc: PMC7745586
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
234-240Informations de copyright
© The Author(s) 2020.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Declaration of conflicting interests: The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Références
Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2000 Jul;19(7):501-5
pubmed: 10968320
J Glob Infect Dis. 2010 Sep;2(3):291-304
pubmed: 20927292
J Orthop Trauma. 2015 Jan;29(1):18-20
pubmed: 24869758
J Arthroplasty. 2017 Jul;32(7):2040-2046
pubmed: 28366315
Med Mal Infect. 2015 Nov-Dec;45(11-12):436-40
pubmed: 26525185
Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1999 Apr;20(4):250-78; quiz 279-80
pubmed: 10219875
Orthopedics. 2011 Nov 09;34(11):e765-7
pubmed: 22049960
Clin Microbiol Rev. 2014 Oct;27(4):870-926
pubmed: 25278577
Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2015 Feb;101(1 Suppl):S77-83
pubmed: 25623269
Clin Microbiol Rev. 2010 Apr;23(2):382-98
pubmed: 20375358
Lancet. 1985 Feb 16;1(8425):386-8
pubmed: 2857432
AORN J. 2017 Dec;106(6):534-546
pubmed: 29173378
Int Surg. 2014 May-Jun;99(3):264-8
pubmed: 24833150
J Hosp Infect. 1990 Jul;16(1):67-73
pubmed: 1974908
Croat Med J. 2008 Feb;49(1):58-65
pubmed: 18293458
Clin Microbiol Rev. 1993 Oct;6(4):324-38
pubmed: 8269390
J Arthroplasty. 2016 Jan;31(1):225-33
pubmed: 26321627
Appl Environ Microbiol. 2014 Nov;80(21):6611-9
pubmed: 25128346
Clin Microbiol Rev. 2014 Apr;27(2):302-45
pubmed: 24696437
Br J Dermatol. 1999 Sep;141(3):558-61
pubmed: 10583069
Ann Ig. 2016 Sep-Oct;28(5):360-6
pubmed: 27627667