Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospital Muenster, Muenster, Germany.
Institute of Biostatistics and Clinical Research, University of Muenster, Muenster, Germany.
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2016 May;47(5):646-51. doi: 10.1002/uog.15771.
Transvaginal and intracavitary ultrasound probes are a possible source of cross-contamination with microorganisms and thus a risk to patients' health. Therefore appropriate methods for reprocessing are needed. This study was designed to compare the standard disinfection method for transvaginal ultrasound probes in Germany with an automated disinfection method in a clinical setting.
This was a prospective randomized controlled clinical study of two groups. In each group, 120 microbial samples were collected from ultrasound transducers before and after disinfection with either an automated method (Trophon EPR®) or a manual method (Mikrozid Sensitive® wipes). Samples were then analyzed for microbial growth and isolates were identified to species level.
Automated disinfection had a statistically significantly higher success rate of 91.4% (106/116) compared with 78.8% (89/113) for manual disinfection (P = 0.009). The risk of contamination was increased by 2.9-fold when disinfection was performed manually (odds ratio, 2.9 (95% CI, 1.3-6.3)). Before disinfection, bacterial contamination was observed on 98.8% of probes. Microbial analysis revealed 36 different species of bacteria, including skin and environmental bacteria as well as pathogenic bacteria such as Staphylococcus aureus, enterobacteriaceae and Pseudomonas spp.
Considering the high number of contaminated probes and bacterial species found, disinfection of the ultrasound probe's body and handle should be performed after each use to decrease the risk of cross-contamination. This study favored automated disinfection owing to its significantly higher efficacy compared with a manual method. Copyright © 2015 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
经阴道和宫腔超声探头可能成为微生物交叉污染的源头,从而对患者健康构成威胁。因此,需要采取适当的再处理方法。本研究旨在比较德国经阴道超声探头的标准消毒方法与临床环境下的自动消毒方法。
这是一项针对两组的前瞻性随机对照临床研究。在每组中,使用自动方法(Trophon EPR®)或手动方法(Mikrozid Sensitive®擦拭巾)对 120 个超声换能器进行消毒前后,从超声换能器上采集 120 个微生物样本。然后对样本进行微生物生长分析,并对分离株进行种属鉴定。
与手动消毒(78.8%,89/113)相比,自动消毒的成功率具有统计学显著优势,为 91.4%(106/116)(P=0.009)。手动消毒时,污染的风险增加了 2.9 倍(比值比,2.9(95%可信区间,1.3-6.3))。消毒前,98.8%的探头均有细菌污染。微生物分析显示 36 种不同的细菌,包括皮肤和环境细菌以及金黄色葡萄球菌、肠杆菌科和铜绿假单胞菌等致病菌。
鉴于污染探头的数量和发现的细菌种类较多,应在每次使用后对超声探头的探头体和探头柄进行消毒,以降低交叉污染的风险。与手动方法相比,本研究中自动消毒的效果明显更好,因此更倾向于使用自动消毒。版权所有©2015 ISUOG。由 John Wiley & Sons Ltd 出版。