Veterinary surgery : VS · 2025
Comparison of steam and hydrogen peroxide gas plasma sterilization of cohesive latex bandage wraps: A pilot study.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Austin Sarah L, Truswell Alec, O'Byrne Kadie, Coghill Fiona J
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To compare the sterilization of cohesive bandage material with steam or hydrogen peroxide gas plasma (HPGP).
STUDY DESIGN: In vitro experimental pilot study.
SAMPLE POPULATION: Latex cohesive bandages (n = 49).
METHODS: Rip-Rap cohesive bandages (n = 20) in equal groups; as supplied, rewound with or without the cardboard roll, and as supplied with no cardboard roll. These were inoculated with 0.1 mL Geobacillus stearothermophilus spores. Each was packaged with a chemical and biological indicator before sterilization with HPGP. Wrap.it (n = 10) and Rip-Rap (n = 10) bandages, divided into as-supplied and rewound groups, were inoculated with 0.1 mL G. stearothermophilus spores. Then sterilized in a steam autoclave at 134°C for 5 min. Post sterilization, the inoculated area was resected and placed into broth and incubated at 60°C for 48 h (HPGP) and 24 h (Steam), then plated onto nutrient agar plates and incubated at 60°C for 24 h. A positive result was recorded as any growth and confirmed as a pure G. stearothermophilus population via MALDI-TOF.
RESULTS: A total of 16 of the HPGP samples had growth of G. stearothermophilus post sterilization. A total of 12 chemical indicators and four biological indicators passed. None of the steam sterilized samples had positive growth, and all indicators passed.
CONCLUSION: HPGP is not an adequate method of sterilization for latex cohesive bandages. Steam sterilization is effective when the critical parameters for length and temperature are met.
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Evidence-based recommendations guide in-house sterilization of latex cohesive bandages for use within the surgical field. This is an important aspect of draping aseptically and, therefore, infection prevention.
STUDY DESIGN: In vitro experimental pilot study.
SAMPLE POPULATION: Latex cohesive bandages (n = 49).
METHODS: Rip-Rap cohesive bandages (n = 20) in equal groups; as supplied, rewound with or without the cardboard roll, and as supplied with no cardboard roll. These were inoculated with 0.1 mL Geobacillus stearothermophilus spores. Each was packaged with a chemical and biological indicator before sterilization with HPGP. Wrap.it (n = 10) and Rip-Rap (n = 10) bandages, divided into as-supplied and rewound groups, were inoculated with 0.1 mL G. stearothermophilus spores. Then sterilized in a steam autoclave at 134°C for 5 min. Post sterilization, the inoculated area was resected and placed into broth and incubated at 60°C for 48 h (HPGP) and 24 h (Steam), then plated onto nutrient agar plates and incubated at 60°C for 24 h. A positive result was recorded as any growth and confirmed as a pure G. stearothermophilus population via MALDI-TOF.
RESULTS: A total of 16 of the HPGP samples had growth of G. stearothermophilus post sterilization. A total of 12 chemical indicators and four biological indicators passed. None of the steam sterilized samples had positive growth, and all indicators passed.
CONCLUSION: HPGP is not an adequate method of sterilization for latex cohesive bandages. Steam sterilization is effective when the critical parameters for length and temperature are met.
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Evidence-based recommendations guide in-house sterilization of latex cohesive bandages for use within the surgical field. This is an important aspect of draping aseptically and, therefore, infection prevention.