ArticleHNO2014
[Disinfection and recontamination of rigid endoscopes: improved safety using an immersion quiver system].
Article in HNO, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- [Hygiene during otorhinolaryngological examinations : Prevention of nosocomial infections].HNO · 2021Article
- Microbiological contamination of ear, nose and throat (ENT) units.GMS hygiene and infection control · 2019Article
- Review
- Is the Stella™ 5L system an effective cold sterilization technique for needle-based confocal miniprobes?Endoscopic ultrasoundArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn Otorhinolaryngology, rigid endoscopes are used daily at a high frequency. There is no consensus for reprocessing these medical instruments. Often immersion disinfection procedures are used. The present study examined the possible risk of recontamination by this disinfection method and investigated the possibility of avoiding this risk by using a new immersion quiver system.
methodsUsing coloured markers, a possible contact of the endoscope with the top edges of quivers of different diameters during endoscope removal was tested for. In addition, it was evaluated whether Staphylococcus aureus transfer is possible via this route. The same methodology was applied to a new immersion quiver system.
resultsWhenever removing the rigid endoscopes from the conventional quiver, these touched the top of the quiver, regardless of its diameter. A transfer of Staphylococcus aureus from the quiver to the endoscope via this route could be detected in five out of eight attempts. During endoscope removal from the new immersion quiver system, no contact of the endoscope with the outer quiver occurred in 20 passes. In none of eight trials was a transfer of Staphylococcus aureus from previously contaminated immersion quivers to the endoscope shown; all immersion quivers were sterile after disinfection. DISCUSSION: After conventional immersion disinfection, recontamination of rigid endoscopes by a contaminated quiver edge is possible. An immersion quiver system can resolve this risk of recontamination easily, by decontaminating not only the endoscope, but also the immersion quiver (inner quiver) itself in the disinfectant solution.
Indexed as
Identifiers
24867489What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.