Phillips Eye Institute, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA.
Am J Ophthalmol. 2012 Mar;153(3):405-411.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.ajo.2011.08.013. Epub 2011 Oct 19.
To determine if wrapping instruments in conjunction with full-cycle steam sterilization affects the incidence of postoperative infection in patients undergoing ophthalmic surgery in a dedicated eye center.
Retrospective, consecutive-case, comparative study.
Two consecutive groups, each of approximately 19 000 ophthalmic surgical patients, were reviewed for postoperative infection. For both groups, the surgical instruments were sterilized using full-cycle, steam sterilization, with a single major difference. The instruments for the first group were sterilized with equipment located adjacent to the operating room and no wrapping of the instruments was used, whereas for the second group, the sterilization equipment was located at a central facility and the instruments were wrapped before being transported to the operating rooms.
In the unwrapped sterilization group 17 presumed postoperative infections were identified, compared to 9 presumed infections in the wrapped sterilization group. Because the observed infection rates for each group were so low, this apparent difference is not statistically significant (P = .16). Similarly, differences found in the incidence of culture-positive cases of endophthalmitis (5 for unwrapped vs 3 for wrapped) were not statistically significant (P = .47).
In a dedicated, high-volume eye facility, the incidence of presumed postoperative infection associated with unwrapped and wrapped full-cycle steam sterilization were shown to be identical within statistical error. This provides strong evidence that if eye surgical facilities carefully clean surgical instruments and follow the industry and manufacturer guidelines, they can, with confidence, use either of these 2 methods of sterilization. This study presents the first concrete data that corroborate the current position of The Joint Commission, American Academy of Ophthalmology (AAO) and American Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgery (ASCRS).
确定在专门的眼科中心进行眼科手术后,将器械包裹并结合全循环蒸汽灭菌是否会影响患者术后感染的发生率。
回顾性、连续病例、对照研究。
对两组连续的约 19000 例眼科手术患者进行术后感染回顾。两组患者的手术器械均采用全循环蒸汽灭菌进行灭菌,只有一个主要区别。第一组的器械在靠近手术室的设备中进行灭菌,并且不包裹器械,而第二组的灭菌设备位于中央设施,器械在运往手术室之前进行包裹。
在未包裹的灭菌组中发现了 17 例疑似术后感染,而在包裹的灭菌组中发现了 9 例疑似感染。由于每个组的观察感染率都很低,这种明显的差异没有统计学意义(P =.16)。同样,在眼内炎培养阳性病例的发生率方面发现的差异(未包裹组为 5 例,包裹组为 3 例)也没有统计学意义(P =.47)。
在专门的、高容量的眼科设施中,未包裹和包裹的全循环蒸汽灭菌与疑似术后感染的发生率在统计学误差范围内是相同的。这有力地证明了,如果眼科手术设施仔细清洁手术器械并遵循行业和制造商的指南,他们可以有信心使用这两种灭菌方法中的任何一种。这项研究首次提供了具体数据,证实了联合委员会、美国眼科学会(AAO)和美国白内障和屈光手术学会(ASCRS)的当前立场。