ArticleVeterinary sciences2025
A Shelf-Life Assessment of Sterilized Surgical Instruments Stored Under Controlled Conditions: A Comparative Study of a Single vs. Double Self-Sealing Pouch.
Article in Veterinary sciences, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
(1) Background: postoperative surgical-site infections are a significant complication in small-animal surgical procedures, with detected rates ranging from 0.8% to 18.1%, depending on the type of surgery. The sterilization process of surgical instruments is a crucial factor in infection control, but the shelf life of surgical instruments and the best packaging method are not precisely defined due to the multiple variables that influence them. This study aimed to assess the shelf life of surgical instruments stored under controlled environmental conditions in a veterinary hospital and compare two packaging methods: using a self-sealing single pouch versus a self-sealing double pouch. (2) Methods: a sample of 400 non-sterile screws was divided into three groups: Group 1 (175 screws in single pouches), Group 2 (175 screws in double pouches), and Group 3 (50 non-sterile screws as a control group to verify the microbial culture efficiency). Microbiological tests were conducted at 1, 7, 15, 30, 60, 182, and 390 days post-sterilization. (3) Results: no bacterial growth was detected on screws packaged in single and double pouches up to 182 days. However, after 390 days, bacterial growth was observed in one screw packaged in a single pouch. In Group 3, only two screws turned out to be bacteriologically positive. (4) Conclusions: no statistical difference was found between the two groups; however, the detection of a single positive screw in the single-pouch group raised a potential clinical consideration, suggesting the need for further studies based on events and time.
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.