Halmans Yana, Wellenstein David, Hopman Joost, Takes Robert, van den Broek Guido
Department of Otorhinolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery, Radboud University Medical Center Nijmegen, P/O Box 9101, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Institute for Patientcare, Radboud University Medical Center Nijmegen, P/O Box 9101, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2025 Apr 21;46(6):1-6. doi: 10.1017/ice.2025.56.
A diagnostic flexible laryngoscopy using a flexible endoscope (FE) without a working channel can become contaminated when inserted through the nose to inspect the throat. Microbiological surveillance is necessary to ensure adequate reprocessing. A lack of knowledge exists about the most accurate way to assess microbiological contamination on the surface of FEs without a working channel. A scoping review of research on sampling techniques for FEs without a working channel was done to identify frequently used sampling techniques and to determine the best way to assess microbiological contamination.
PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and CINAHL databases were searched. Data related to the sampling technique and bacterial contamination were extracted.
Twelve of the 378 studies met the inclusion criteria. None compared sampling techniques, most studies investigated the efficacy of several disinfection methods. Retrieved sampling techniques were immersion, swabbing, and wiping. Immersion and wiping could detect bacterial contamination on contaminated FEs without a working channel. Two out of six studies using a swabbing method found bacterial contamination on contaminated FEs without a working channel. Three studies using the swabbing method detected bacterial contamination after disinfection. One study did not retrieve microorganisms after disinfection using the swabbing method.
Three different sampling techniques were extracted: immersion, wiping, and swabbing, which could all detect microbiological contamination on contaminated FEs without a working channel. However, this scoping review identified significant gaps in literature. Additional research is needed to determine the best sampling technique(s) for FEs without a working channel to detect microbiological contamination.
使用无工作通道的柔性内窥镜进行诊断性柔性喉镜检查时,经鼻插入检查喉部时可能会被污染。微生物监测对于确保充分的再处理是必要的。对于评估无工作通道的柔性内窥镜表面微生物污染的最准确方法,目前尚缺乏了解。本研究对无工作通道的柔性内窥镜采样技术的研究进行了范围综述,以确定常用的采样技术,并确定评估微生物污染的最佳方法。
检索了PubMed、Embase、Cochrane图书馆和CINAHL数据库。提取了与采样技术和细菌污染相关的数据。
378项研究中有12项符合纳入标准。没有研究比较采样技术,大多数研究调查了几种消毒方法的效果。检索到的采样技术有浸泡、擦拭和涂抹。浸泡和擦拭可以检测无工作通道的受污染柔性内窥镜上的细菌污染。六项使用涂抹法的研究中有两项发现无工作通道的受污染柔性内窥镜上有细菌污染。三项使用涂抹法的研究在消毒后检测到细菌污染。一项研究在使用涂抹法消毒后未检出微生物。
提取了三种不同的采样技术:浸泡、擦拭和涂抹,这三种技术都可以检测无工作通道的受污染柔性内窥镜上的微生物污染。然而,本范围综述发现文献中存在重大空白。需要进一步研究以确定用于检测无工作通道的柔性内窥镜微生物污染的最佳采样技术。