ArticleActa gastroenterologica Latinoamericana
[Preand Post-Processing Evaluations of Manual and Automated Endoscopes: A Microbiological Isolation].
Article in Acta gastroenterologica Latinoamericana. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: An endoscope is a flexible tube equipped with a camera and a light used for the diagnosis and treatment of digestive pathologies. Although healthcare-associated infections are uncommon, they represent a significant concern. Proper endoscope reprocessing is essential to prevent infections, requiring adherence to established guidelines for cleaning, disinfection, and storage. Objetive: To compare the effectiveness of manual and automated reprocessing of video gastroscopes and colonoscopes through microbiological monitoring of the following microorganisms: ESBL Escherichia coli, Shigella spp., Salmonella spp., Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Klebsiella pneumoniae carbapenemase (KPC)-producing, and vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus spp. Materials and Methods: A prospective, observational, descriptive study was conducted, in which 207 reprocessing procedures of video gastroscopes and colonoscopes were selected for evaluation. Of these, 103 were manual and 104 were automated. The procedures were evaluated in both the preand post-processing stages. Cultures were performed to isolate ESBL Escherichia coli, Shigella spp., Salmonella spp., Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Klebsiella pneumoniae carbapenemase (KPC)-producing, and vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus spp. Results: In the pre-reprocessing samples, ESBL Escherichia coli was isolated in 45% of cases, compared to 55% for manual and automated reprocessing, respectively. Similarly, Pseudomonas aeruginosa was isolated in 36% of cases for manual reprocessing and 18% for automated reprocessing. Salmonella spp. was isolated in 18% of cases for both manual and automated reprocessing. Finally, vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus spp. was isolated in 9% of automated reprocessing samples. The results of the manual post-processing demonstrated that 1% of the samples exhibited counts of 1,000-99,999 colony-forming units (CFU)/ ml, while 6% exhibited counts exceeding 100,000 CFU/ml. The automated method demonstrated a 7% prevalence of samples with over 100,000 colony-forming units (CFU) per milliliter. A comparison of the two modalities revealed that pathogens were not identified in seven of the 103 manual samples and six of the 104 automated samples. The only growth observed in the automated samples was that of coagulase-negative Staphylococcus, which is a potential contaminant. However, one automated sample did yield Salmonella spp. Conclusion: The results obtained were comparable between the two methodologies. The automated reprocessing revealed the presence of an enteropathogen, which will allow for a reassessment of the reprocessing steps in order to enhance the efficacy of the procedures.
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.