Evaluation of the effect of a standardized cleaning process with negative pressure on cleaning phacoemulsification handpiece

Tingting Lin; Chufen Zhuang; Lijun Cai; Xingling Deng

doi:10.11910/j.issn.2791-2043.2023.4.02

Your Location：

Home >

Browse articles >

Evaluation of the effect of a standardized cleaning process with negative pressure on cleaning phacoemulsification handpiece

REVIEW ARTICLES | Updated：2024-02-05

- Evaluation of the effect of a standardized cleaning process with negative pressure on cleaning phacoemulsification handpiece
- Sterile Supply Vol. 2, Issue 4, (2023)
- Affiliations：
  
  State Key Laboratory of Ophthalmology, Zhongshan Ophthalmic Center, Sun Yat-Sen `University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, 510060 China
- Author bio：
  
  Xingling Deng, E-mail: dxl129@163.com
- Funds：
- DOI：10.11910/j.issn.2791-2043.2023.4.02
  CLC：
Scan for full text
Lin Tingting,Zhuang Chufen,Cai Lijun,et al.Evaluation of the effect of a standardized cleaning process with negative pressure on cleaning phacoemulsification handpiece[J].Sterile Supply,2023,02(04):173-178.
DOI：

Lin Tingting,Zhuang Chufen,Cai Lijun,et al.Evaluation of the effect of a standardized cleaning process with negative pressure on cleaning phacoemulsification handpiece[J].Sterile Supply,2023,02(04):173-178. DOI： 10.11910/j.issn.2791-2043.2023.4.02.

摘要

Abstract

Objective,2,The present study intends to evaluate the effectiveness of a standardized cleaning process with negative pressure suction in cleaning phacoemulsification handpieces.,Methods,2,Sixty phaco handpieces requiring post-operative cleaning were randomly divided into the experimental groups using standardized cleaning or manual cleaning, and the control group receving no clearing treatment. In the standardized cleaning group, a negative pressure suction device and a pressure water gun were used to clean the lumen. In the manual cleaning group, the suction port and perfusion port of the handpiece were cleaned by a syringe. The cleaning effect was visually evaluated using a magnifying glass with light resources, and enzyme residue was detected by adenosine triphosphate (ATP) bioluminescence assay.,Results,2,The cleaning time of the standardized cleaning group was significantly less than that of the manual cleaning group. The standardized cleaning time decreased as the negative pressure value increased. The optimal negative pressure range was 0.03Mpa to 0.05Mpa.,Conclusion,2,A negative pressure suction device can effectively save the cleaning time of the phaco handpiece. Thus, standardized phaco handpiece cleaning process with a negative pressure suction device can improve cleaning efficiency.

关键词

Keywords

Surgical instrument cleaningPhacoemulsification handpieceStandardized cleaningNegative pressure

references

OLSON R J, BRAGA-MELE R, CHEN S H, et al. Cataract in the adult eye preferred practice pattern®[J]. Ophthalmology, 2017, 124(2): P1-P119.

LEFFLER C T, KLEBANOV A, SAMARA W A, et al. The history of cataract surgery: from couching to phacoemulsification[J]. Ann Transl Med, 2020, 8(22): 1551.

LINEBARGER E J, HARDTEN D R, SHAH G K, et al. Phacoemulsification and modern cataract surgery[J]. Surv Ophthalmol, 1999, 44(2): 123-147.

CHANG D F, MAMALIS N, OPHTHALMIC INSTRUMENT CLEANING AND STERILIZATION TASK FORCE. Guidelines for the cleaning and sterilization of intraocular surgical instruments[J]. J Cataract Refract Surg, 2018, 44(6): 765-773.

LOPES L K O, COSTA D M, TIPPLE A F V, et al. Complex design of surgical instruments as barrier for cleaning effectiveness, favouring biofilm formation[J]. J Hosp Infect, 2019, 103(1): e53-e60.

COWPERTHWAITE L, HOLM R L. Guideline implementation: surgical instrument cleaning[J]. AORN J, 2015, 101(5): 542-549;quiz 550-552.

AZIZI J, ANDERSON S G, MURPHY S, et al. Uphill grime: process improvement in surgical instrument cleaning[J]. AORN J, 2012, 96(2): 152-162.

PATEL D, HOARE P. Instruments for cataract surgery: results from our survey[J]. Community Eye Health, 2011, 24(76): 26-29.

CUTLER PECK C M, BRUBAKER J, CLOUSER S, et al. Toxic anterior segment syndrome: common causes[J]. J Cataract Refract Surg, 2010, 36(7): 1073-1080.

HERNANDEZ-BOGANTES E, NAVAS A, NARANJO A, et al. Toxic anterior segment syndrome: a review[J]. Surv Ophthalmol, 2019, 64(4): 463-476.

ZHOU W Z, YE C, HUANG X Q, et al. Efficacy of cleaning methods for ophthalmic microscopic instruments: a comparison study[J]. AORN J, 2020, 112(2): 112-121.

China MoHotPsRo: “WS310—2016 Hospital Disinfection Supply Center”. People’s Health Publishing House 2016.

HASHEMI BENI H, SHAFIEI Z, GHADAMI A. A comparative study of the manual, automated, and ultrasonic surgical-instrument cleaning methods[J]. J Iran Med Counc, 2022.

SANNA T, DALLOLIO L, RAGGI A, et al. ATP bioluminescence assay for evaluating cleaning practices in operating theatres: applicability and limitations[J]. BMC Infect Dis, 2018, 18(1): 583.

CHEN F C, GODWIN S L. Comparison of a rapid ATP bioluminescence assay and standard plate count methods for assessing microbial contamination of consumers’ refrigerators[J]. J Food Prot, 2006, 69(10): 2534-2538.

CROKE L. Guideline for electrosurgical safety[J]. AORN J, 2020, 112(1): P9-P11.

THIEL C L, SCHEHLEIN E, RAVILLA T, et al. Cataract surgery and environmental sustainability: waste and lifecycle assessment of phacoemulsification at a private healthcare facility[J]. J Cataract Refract Surg, 2017, 43(11): 1391-1398.

ALFA M J. Medical instrument reprocessing: current issues with cleaning and cleaning monitoring[J]. Am J Infect Control, 2019, 47S: A10-A16.

BRONZATTI J A G, LARANJEIRA P R, BRUNA C Q M, et al. The effect of brush motion and rinsing when manually cleaning cannulated medical devices[J]. AORN J, 2020, 111(5): 508-514.

CROKE L. Guideline for care and cleaning of surgical instruments[J]. AORN J, 2020, 112(3): P9-P11.

Views

Downloads

CSCD

Alert me when the article has been cited

Submit

Tools

Publicity Resources

No data

Related Author

No data

Related Institution

No data

⁰