Investigation into the current status of cleaning, disinfection, and sterilization of da Vinci surgical instruments—a cross-sectional survey

BACKGROUND: In recent years, the use of robotic-assisted surgery has developed rapidly in China and is now widely used in many clinical fields. However, da Vinci robotic surgical instruments are more precise, expensive, and complex than ordinary laparoscopes, have less instrument configuration, involve restrictions on the duration of use, and have cleanliness requirements for supporting instruments. The purpose of this study was to analyze and summarize the current status of cleaning, disinfection, and maintenance of da Vinci robotic surgical instruments in China to improve the management of these devices. METHODS: A questionnaire survey on the use of da Vinci robotic-assisted surgery at medical institutions in China was designed, distributed, and analyzed. The survey included items regarding general information, management of instrument handling personnel, instrument handling techniques, guidelines, and references for instrument handling. The results and conclusions were formed from the data generated by the analysis system and the answers of respondents to the open-ended questions. RESULTS: (I) All surgical instruments used in domestic surgery practice were imported. There were 25 hospitals that conduct more than 500 da Vinci robotic-assisted surgeries every year. (II) In a relatively high proportion of medical institutions, nurses continued to be responsible for the processes of cleaning (46%), disinfection (66%), and low-temperature sterilization (50%). (III) A total of 62% of the surveyed institutions used fully manual methods for cleaning instruments, and 30% of the ultrasonic cleaning equipment in surveyed institutions did not comply with the standard. (IV) A total of 28% of surveyed institutions used only visual inspection to evaluate cleaning efficacy. Only 16–32% of surveyed institutions regularly used adenosine triphosphate (ATP), residual protein, and other methods to detect sterilization of cavities in instruments. (V) In 60% of the surveyed institutions, robotic surgical instruments have been damaged. CONCLUSIONS: Cleaning efficacy detection methods of robotic surgical instruments were not uniform and standardized. The management of device protection operations should be further regulated. In addition, further study of relevant guidelines and specifications as well as the training of operators is warranted.