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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |