International ophthalmology · 2024
Mobile unidirectional airflow device reduces air contamination in an intravitreal outpatient clean room setting.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Fiore Tito, De Santi Nicola, Pietrella Donatella, Barcaccia Mariella, Palmieri Melissa Ida, Lupidi Marco, Mariotti Cesare, Cagini Carlo
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To evaluate and compare the mycobacterial load using a mobile laminar airflow (LAF) device in an IVI-dedicated outpatient clean room (OCR) without ventilation systems and in a hospital-based operating theatre (HOT).
METHODS: This case-control study was conducted in 2 different settings: OCR and HOT during a series of intravitreal injections (IVIs). The Air Microbial analysis was performed using a Surface Air System instrument at three different moments during the IVI sessions in both settings: at the operative site (OS), four meters from the OS (DOS) and in the disinfection room (DR).
RESULTS: At the OS in the OCR, the microbial load was 20.33 ± 16.51 CFU/m3 at T-1; 1.00 ± 1.00 CFU/m3 at T0; 6.67 ± 6.03 CFU/m3 at T1; 10.00 ± 9.54 CFU/m3 at T2 and 4.33 ± 3.06 CFU/m3 at T3. At the OS in the HOT, the CFU were respectively 0.00 ± 0.00 at T0; 0.67 ± 0.58 at T1; 0.00 ± 0.00 at T2 and 0.00 ± 0.00 T3.
CONCLUSIONS: This standardized sterile technique in an OCR setting, with a mobile LAF, reduces the microbial colonies to levels that are safe and comparable to those recorded in the HOT setting, thus potentially improving the safety of IVIs in an OCR setting.
METHODS: This case-control study was conducted in 2 different settings: OCR and HOT during a series of intravitreal injections (IVIs). The Air Microbial analysis was performed using a Surface Air System instrument at three different moments during the IVI sessions in both settings: at the operative site (OS), four meters from the OS (DOS) and in the disinfection room (DR).
RESULTS: At the OS in the OCR, the microbial load was 20.33 ± 16.51 CFU/m3 at T-1; 1.00 ± 1.00 CFU/m3 at T0; 6.67 ± 6.03 CFU/m3 at T1; 10.00 ± 9.54 CFU/m3 at T2 and 4.33 ± 3.06 CFU/m3 at T3. At the OS in the HOT, the CFU were respectively 0.00 ± 0.00 at T0; 0.67 ± 0.58 at T1; 0.00 ± 0.00 at T2 and 0.00 ± 0.00 T3.
CONCLUSIONS: This standardized sterile technique in an OCR setting, with a mobile LAF, reduces the microbial colonies to levels that are safe and comparable to those recorded in the HOT setting, thus potentially improving the safety of IVIs in an OCR setting.