ArticleMalaysian orthopaedic journal2024
Technical Properties and Biological Safety of Reprocessing Technique for a Handpiece of Disposable Pulsatile Lavage Device: An Experimental Study.
Article in Malaysian orthopaedic journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Bony surface cleaning using a pulse lavage device (PLD) is essential for modern cementation of hip and knee arthroplasties. This costly single-use device is a medical waste and unaffordable for some patients. Reprocessing is a worldwide standard strategy to solve this problem. To determine the technical properties and biological safety of a reprocessed PLD handpiece and compare its performance under different power supplies. Materials and Methods: Eight brand-new disposable PLDs were tested for baseline technical properties (flow rate, pulse frequency, and peak pressure). Thereafter, they were reprocessed and retested for 10 rounds using two different power supplies. An adenosine triphosphate (ATP) swab test was performed on the PLD accessory parts after cleansing and disinfection. Passed-through isotonic sodium chloride solution ejected from the reprocessed PLD underwent aerobic bacterial culture. The unit costs of production were analysed. Results: The mean flow rate of the disposable PLD (1.5±0.1 L/min) was less than that of reprocessed PLD using DC15V battery (2.5±0.3 L/min, p<0.001) and AC/DC15V3A adapter (6.1±0.4 L/min, p<0.001). The mean pulse frequency and peak pressure of the disposable PLD and reprocessed PLD using DC15V battery were not different (18.5±0.8 vs 18.8±2.5 Hz, p=0.155 and 0.37±0.04 vs 0.38±0.03 N/mm2, p=0.640, respectively), but were lower than those using AC/DC15V3A adapter (47.0±2.7 Hz, 0.45±0.03 N/mm2, p<0.001). All ATP swab tests, and aerobic fluid cultures yielded negative results. The total cost of reprocessing was 10% of disposable PLD. Conclusion: A disposable PLD handpiece can be reprocessed without deteriorating its technical properties and used with either retrieved DC15V battery or AC/DC15V3A adapter for the power supply. As the biological safety of reprocessed and disposable PLDs was comparable, it may be clinically utilised with 90% cost reduction.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.