首页> 外文期刊>The Journal of hospital infection >Efficacy of 10 different cleaning processes in a washer-disinfector for flexible endoscopes.
【24h】

Efficacy of 10 different cleaning processes in a washer-disinfector for flexible endoscopes.

机译:柔性内窥镜清洗消毒器中10种不同清洗过程的功效。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       

摘要

Successful cleaning of medical devices, such as flexible endocopes, has been recognized to be of major importance for effective processing. Washer-disinfectors (WD) are considered to be an important step in this direction. The cleaning process in WD, however, has only been partially assessed regarding its effectiveness, and therefore to study this in more detail, tests were carried out, according prEN ISO 15883, using transparent teflon tubes as test pieces (length 2 m). For each experiment three test pieces were contaminated with the 'German test soil' containing Enterococcus faecium in blood, two for the test and one as a control (no automatic cleaning). Automatic cleaning was performed with a Wassenburg WD 440. Ten cleaning agents were used. In addition the process was carried out with water alone. After automated cleaning, test pieces were assessed visually (four categories, range: very poor to excellent visible cleanliness) and microbiologically [log(10) reduction factor (RF)]. Each experiment wasrepeated three times. Using the WD water gave excellent visible cleanliness with a mean RF of 1.1+/-0.6. The same excellent visible cleanliness was obtained with seven cleaning processes: deconex((R)) 23 Neutrazym, Helimatic Cleaner enzymatic, Korsolex((R))-Endo-Cleaner, Labomat E, neodisher((R)) mediclean, Thermosept((R)) ER, and Thermoton NR. Worse visible cleanliness was found with three cleaning processes: Olympus ETD Cleaner and neodisher FE led to adequate visible cleanliness, and the cleaning process with neodisher medizym led to poor visible cleanliness. Six cleaning processes reduced the test organism by RF>/=3, i.e. the reduction was significantly higher than after cleaning with water alone. No significant difference between use of water alone and the cleaning process was found with three cleaning processes: Olympus ETD Cleaner, neodisher mediclean, and Thermosept ER (range RF: 0.8-1.8; [Formula: see text] 5). The cleaning process with neodisher medizym yielded a significantly lower mean RF [Formula: see text] in comparison with water treatment alone. Both visible cleanliness and mean RF, varied indicating that the choice of cleaning process had a major impact on the overall result.
机译:成功地清洗医疗设备,例如柔性内窥镜,对于有效处理至关重要。清洗消毒器(WD)被认为是朝着这个方向迈出的重要一步。但是,仅对WD清洁过程的有效性进行了部分评估,因此,为了更详细地研究WD的清洁过程,根据prEN ISO 15883,使用透明的聚四氟乙烯管作为试件(长度为2 m)进行了测试。对于每个实验,三个试件被血液中含有粪肠球菌的“德国测试土壤”污染,两个用于测试,一个作为对照(不自动清洁)。使用Wassenburg WD 440进行自动清洁。使用了十种清洁剂。另外,该过程仅用水进行。自动清洗后,目视评估试件(四个类别,范围:非常差至极佳的可见清洁度),并通过微生物学评估[log(10)降低因子(RF)]。每个实验重复三次。使用WD水可提供出色的可见清洁度,平均RF为1.1 +/- 0.6。通过七个清洁过程获得了同样优异的可见清洁度:deconex 23 Neutrazym,Helimatic Cleaner酶,Korsolex-Endo-Cleaner,Labomat E,neodisher mediclean,Thermosept( R))ER和Thermoton NR。通过三种清洁工艺发现了更差的可见清洁度:Olympus ETD清洁剂和Neodisher FE导致足够的可见清洁度,而Neodisher medizym的清洁过程导致较差的可见清洁度。六个清洗过程使测试生物减少了RF> / = 3,即,减少程度明显高于仅用水清洗后的减少程度。仅使用水与清洁过程之间的三个清洁过程之间没有显着差异:奥林巴斯ETD清洁剂,新洗碗机mediclean和Thermosept ER(范围RF:0.8-1.8; [公式:参见文字] 5)。与单独的水处理相比,使用Neodisher medizym进行的清洗过程产生的平均RF值要低得多。可见的清洁度和平均RF均发生变化,表明清洁工艺的选择对整体结果有重大影响。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号