Javascript must be enabled to continue!
An Analysis of the Effectiveness of High-level Disinfection for Surgical Instruments Used by Department of Defense Austere Surgical Teams
View through CrossRef
ABSTRACT
Introduction
The purpose of this investigation was to evaluate the efficacy of currently employed commercial disinfectants in a simulated austere surgical environment similarly faced by ground surgical teams in forward deployed positions. Severe contamination of traumatic combat wounds along with limitations of operations in austere environments may result in available disinfectants providing inadequate surgical instrument decontamination.
Materials and Methods
The study consisted of nine experimental groups and two control groups evaluating hemostatic forceps found in kits of ground surgical teams. Hemostats were contaminated in a manner replicating the use in austere wartime surgery, cleaned by manual debridement and soaked in a disinfectant. Initially, instruments were debrided in one of three initial liquids (potable water, sterile water, or potable water with Envirocleanse A) and subsequently treated with one of three terminal disinfectants (Cidex OPA, CaviCide, or Neutral Disinfectant Cleaner). Treated hemostats were placed in sterile wire-closure bags for various storage times and tested for viable bacteria measured by colony-forming units.
Results
Our findings indicated that mechanical debridement in water, independent of Envirocleanse A, followed by soaking in any of the three terminal disinfectants achieved a marked reduction in recovered bacteria from hemostats regardless of storage length. Of the three disinfectants tested, Cidex OPA appeared to be the most robust in terms of decontamination, followed by CaviCide and Neutral Disinfectant Cleaner.
Conclusions
This study supports the conclusion that all evaluated disinfectants are capable of rapidly producing instruments with minimal bacterial contaminants when standard sterilization is unavailable. Therefore, when lifesaving surgical intervention must be performed in a deployed environment, austere surgical teams can confidently utilize either product with minimal risk of infection. However, of the disinfectants, Cidex OPA appears to be most effective in reducing bacterial contamination for both rapid and slow turnover of instrument usage, and thus, the disinfectants are recommended for application when sterilization is not available.
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Title: An Analysis of the Effectiveness of High-level Disinfection for Surgical Instruments Used by Department of Defense Austere Surgical Teams
Description:
ABSTRACT
Introduction
The purpose of this investigation was to evaluate the efficacy of currently employed commercial disinfectants in a simulated austere surgical environment similarly faced by ground surgical teams in forward deployed positions.
Severe contamination of traumatic combat wounds along with limitations of operations in austere environments may result in available disinfectants providing inadequate surgical instrument decontamination.
Materials and Methods
The study consisted of nine experimental groups and two control groups evaluating hemostatic forceps found in kits of ground surgical teams.
Hemostats were contaminated in a manner replicating the use in austere wartime surgery, cleaned by manual debridement and soaked in a disinfectant.
Initially, instruments were debrided in one of three initial liquids (potable water, sterile water, or potable water with Envirocleanse A) and subsequently treated with one of three terminal disinfectants (Cidex OPA, CaviCide, or Neutral Disinfectant Cleaner).
Treated hemostats were placed in sterile wire-closure bags for various storage times and tested for viable bacteria measured by colony-forming units.
Results
Our findings indicated that mechanical debridement in water, independent of Envirocleanse A, followed by soaking in any of the three terminal disinfectants achieved a marked reduction in recovered bacteria from hemostats regardless of storage length.
Of the three disinfectants tested, Cidex OPA appeared to be the most robust in terms of decontamination, followed by CaviCide and Neutral Disinfectant Cleaner.
Conclusions
This study supports the conclusion that all evaluated disinfectants are capable of rapidly producing instruments with minimal bacterial contaminants when standard sterilization is unavailable.
Therefore, when lifesaving surgical intervention must be performed in a deployed environment, austere surgical teams can confidently utilize either product with minimal risk of infection.
However, of the disinfectants, Cidex OPA appears to be most effective in reducing bacterial contamination for both rapid and slow turnover of instrument usage, and thus, the disinfectants are recommended for application when sterilization is not available.
Related Results
Hydatid Disease of The Brain Parenchyma: A Systematic Review
Hydatid Disease of The Brain Parenchyma: A Systematic Review
Abstarct
Introduction
Isolated brain hydatid disease (BHD) is an extremely rare form of echinococcosis. A prompt and timely diagnosis is a crucial step in disease management. This ...
Evaluation of differences in the performance strategies of top and bottom basketball teams utilizing rank-sum ratio comprehensive
Evaluation of differences in the performance strategies of top and bottom basketball teams utilizing rank-sum ratio comprehensive
IntroductionThis study aimed to explore common characteristics among top basketball teams, differentiate attacking and defensive performance between top and bottom teams, and corre...
7
th
International Symposium on Enabling Technologies for Life Sciences (ETP)
7
th
International Symposium on Enabling Technologies for Life Sciences (ETP)
The seventh in the series of ETP Symposia (see
Rapid Communications in Mass Spectrometry
2012,
26
, ...
Evaluation of Disinfection Methods and Effects for Handwashing Sinks Contaminated with Pseudomonas aeruginosa
Evaluation of Disinfection Methods and Effects for Handwashing Sinks Contaminated with Pseudomonas aeruginosa
Abstract
Objective
To address the recurrent contamination of handwashing sinks with Pseudomonas aeruginosa (PA) in the Pediatri...
Comparative Evaluation of Disinfection on Elastomeric Impression Material using 2% Gluteraldehyde, Ultra Violet Radiation and Gaseous Ozone using Customised Disinfection Unit - An In-Vitro Study
Comparative Evaluation of Disinfection on Elastomeric Impression Material using 2% Gluteraldehyde, Ultra Violet Radiation and Gaseous Ozone using Customised Disinfection Unit - An In-Vitro Study
Dental impressions is the preliminary step for any procedure and acts as a microbial source leading to contamination to the operator and lab technician. Hence, the disinfection of ...
Comparative Analysis Of A Multi-Layered Weapon System For City Air Defense In The Modern Warfare
Comparative Analysis Of A Multi-Layered Weapon System For City Air Defense In The Modern Warfare
In the era of modern warfare, urban defense is a very important aspect to maintain the security and stability of a country. Because modern war is a non-military war in which develo...
Factors Affecting Implementation and Pass Rates of Moistening Surgical Instruments
Factors Affecting Implementation and Pass Rates of Moistening Surgical Instruments
Abstract
Background: Under influences of count, handover, transport and other procedures, surgical instruments might not be cleaned immediately after use, and they were not...
KNOWLEDGE AND PRACTICE ON DISINFECTION OF DENTAL IMPRESSIONS AMONG DENTISTS AND DENTAL TECHNICIANS
KNOWLEDGE AND PRACTICE ON DISINFECTION OF DENTAL IMPRESSIONS AMONG DENTISTS AND DENTAL TECHNICIANS
Background: Dental impressions are a common source for transmission of infection between dental clinics and dental labs. Dental impressions can be cross-contaminated by patient’s s...

