Cargando…

Operating room disinfection: operator-driven ultraviolet ‘C’ vs. chemical treatment

BACKGROUND: In operating room (OR) surfaces, Nosocomial pathogens can persist on inanimate surfaces for long intervals and are highly resistant to traditional surface cleaning. AIM: This study compares traditional chemical operating room terminal disinfection to a unique operator-driven device that...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Fickenscher, Marie-Claire, Stewart, Madeline, Helber, Ryan, Quilligan, Edward J., Kreitenberg, Arthur, Prietto, Carlos A., Gardner, Vance O.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Elsevier 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10412461/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37575675
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.infpip.2023.100301
_version_ 1785086910471864320
author Fickenscher, Marie-Claire
Stewart, Madeline
Helber, Ryan
Quilligan, Edward J.
Kreitenberg, Arthur
Prietto, Carlos A.
Gardner, Vance O.
author_facet Fickenscher, Marie-Claire
Stewart, Madeline
Helber, Ryan
Quilligan, Edward J.
Kreitenberg, Arthur
Prietto, Carlos A.
Gardner, Vance O.
author_sort Fickenscher, Marie-Claire
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: In operating room (OR) surfaces, Nosocomial pathogens can persist on inanimate surfaces for long intervals and are highly resistant to traditional surface cleaning. AIM: This study compares traditional chemical operating room terminal disinfection to a unique operator-driven device that emits germicidal UV light at short distance onto vertical and horizontal surfaces. METHODS: A randomized crossover analogous protocol assigned 40 end-of-day operating rooms into either group A (chemical then UVC treatments) or group B (UVC then chemical treatments). Initial Staphylococcal cultures were obtained prior to disinfection treatment, after the first treatment, and after the second treatment at 16 most commonly contaminated sites to represent overall room contamination. Success was defined as no growth and failure as 1 or more colony forming units. Thoroughness of chemical treatment vs UVC treatment was compared and used to determine if the second treatment was additive to the first treatment within each group. FINDINGS: The operator driven UVC device outperformed chemical treatment in reducing the number of contaminated sites in the OR by more than half (P<0.001). Operator-driven UVC reduced contaminated sites after chemical treatment by nearly half (P<0.001). In contrast, chemical treatment after operator-driven UVC did not significantly reduce the number of contaminated sites. The mean employee time of disinfection for chemical treatment was 49 minutes and for the operator-driven UVC emitter 7.9 minutes (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that addition of an operator-driven UVC emitter to OR rooms between cases could be helpful in overall decreasing the number of contaminated sites.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10412461
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher Elsevier
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-104124612023-08-11 Operating room disinfection: operator-driven ultraviolet ‘C’ vs. chemical treatment Fickenscher, Marie-Claire Stewart, Madeline Helber, Ryan Quilligan, Edward J. Kreitenberg, Arthur Prietto, Carlos A. Gardner, Vance O. Infect Prev Pract Original Research Article BACKGROUND: In operating room (OR) surfaces, Nosocomial pathogens can persist on inanimate surfaces for long intervals and are highly resistant to traditional surface cleaning. AIM: This study compares traditional chemical operating room terminal disinfection to a unique operator-driven device that emits germicidal UV light at short distance onto vertical and horizontal surfaces. METHODS: A randomized crossover analogous protocol assigned 40 end-of-day operating rooms into either group A (chemical then UVC treatments) or group B (UVC then chemical treatments). Initial Staphylococcal cultures were obtained prior to disinfection treatment, after the first treatment, and after the second treatment at 16 most commonly contaminated sites to represent overall room contamination. Success was defined as no growth and failure as 1 or more colony forming units. Thoroughness of chemical treatment vs UVC treatment was compared and used to determine if the second treatment was additive to the first treatment within each group. FINDINGS: The operator driven UVC device outperformed chemical treatment in reducing the number of contaminated sites in the OR by more than half (P<0.001). Operator-driven UVC reduced contaminated sites after chemical treatment by nearly half (P<0.001). In contrast, chemical treatment after operator-driven UVC did not significantly reduce the number of contaminated sites. The mean employee time of disinfection for chemical treatment was 49 minutes and for the operator-driven UVC emitter 7.9 minutes (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that addition of an operator-driven UVC emitter to OR rooms between cases could be helpful in overall decreasing the number of contaminated sites. Elsevier 2023-07-28 /pmc/articles/PMC10412461/ /pubmed/37575675 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.infpip.2023.100301 Text en © 2023 The Authors https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
spellingShingle Original Research Article
Fickenscher, Marie-Claire
Stewart, Madeline
Helber, Ryan
Quilligan, Edward J.
Kreitenberg, Arthur
Prietto, Carlos A.
Gardner, Vance O.
Operating room disinfection: operator-driven ultraviolet ‘C’ vs. chemical treatment
title Operating room disinfection: operator-driven ultraviolet ‘C’ vs. chemical treatment
title_full Operating room disinfection: operator-driven ultraviolet ‘C’ vs. chemical treatment
title_fullStr Operating room disinfection: operator-driven ultraviolet ‘C’ vs. chemical treatment
title_full_unstemmed Operating room disinfection: operator-driven ultraviolet ‘C’ vs. chemical treatment
title_short Operating room disinfection: operator-driven ultraviolet ‘C’ vs. chemical treatment
title_sort operating room disinfection: operator-driven ultraviolet ‘c’ vs. chemical treatment
topic Original Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10412461/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37575675
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.infpip.2023.100301
work_keys_str_mv AT fickenschermarieclaire operatingroomdisinfectionoperatordrivenultravioletcvschemicaltreatment
AT stewartmadeline operatingroomdisinfectionoperatordrivenultravioletcvschemicaltreatment
AT helberryan operatingroomdisinfectionoperatordrivenultravioletcvschemicaltreatment
AT quilliganedwardj operatingroomdisinfectionoperatordrivenultravioletcvschemicaltreatment
AT kreitenbergarthur operatingroomdisinfectionoperatordrivenultravioletcvschemicaltreatment
AT priettocarlosa operatingroomdisinfectionoperatordrivenultravioletcvschemicaltreatment
AT gardnervanceo operatingroomdisinfectionoperatordrivenultravioletcvschemicaltreatment