Hostname: page-component-6766d58669-88psn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-24T10:13:21.862Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Bacterial contamination of surgical loupes and headlights

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 April 2019

C Purcell ,
N Moolman ,
C MacKay ,
T F Hatchette ,
J Trites ,
S M Taylor ,
M H Rigby  and
R D Hart
C Purcell*
Affiliation:
Division of Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
N Moolman
Affiliation:
Division of Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
C MacKay
Affiliation:
Division of Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
T F Hatchette
Affiliation:
Division of Microbiology, Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Nova Scotia Health Authority, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
J Trites
Affiliation:
Division of Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
S M Taylor
Affiliation:
Division of Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
M H Rigby
Affiliation:
Division of Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
R D Hart
Affiliation:
Advanced Head and Neck Oncology and Microvascular Reconstruction, Thyroid and Parathyroid Surgery, Foothills Medical Centre, Faculty of Medicine; Department of Surgery, Section of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
*
Author for correspondence: Dr Chad Purcell, Rm 3039 Dickson Building, Dalhousie University, 5820 University Ave., Halifax NS B3H 1V7, Canada E-mail: chad.purcell@dal.ca
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Background

Medical equipment can transmit pathogenic bacteria to patients. This single-institution point prevalence study aimed to characterise the types and relative amount of bacteria found on surgical loupes, headlights and their battery packs.

Method

Surgical loupes, headlights and battery packs of 16 otolaryngology staff and residents were sampled, cultured and quantified. Plate scores were summed for each equipment type, and the total was divided by the number of users to generate mean bacterial burden scores. Residents completed a questionnaire regarding their equipment cleaning practices.

Results

The contamination rates of loupes, headlights and battery packs were 68.75 per cent, 100 per cent and 75 per cent, respectively. Battery packs cultured more bacteria (1.58 per swab ± 1.00) than loupes (0.75 per swab ± 0.66; p = 0.024). Headlights had non-significantly greater growth (1.50 per swab ± 0.71) than loupes (p = 0.052). Bacterial growth was significantly higher from inner surfaces of loupes (p = 0.035) and headlights (p = 0.037). Potentially pathogenic bacteria were cultured from the equipment of five participants, including: Pantoea agglomerans, Acinetobacter radioresistens, Staphylococcus aureus, Acinetobacter calcoaceticus baumannii complex and Moraxella osloensis.

Conclusion

This study demonstrates that surgical loupes and headlights used in otolaryngology harbour non-pathogenic skin flora and potentially pathogenic bacteria.

Keywords

Equipment And SuppliesCross InfectionInfectious Disease TransmissionProfessional-To-Patient

Information

Type
Main Articles
Information
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology , Volume 133 , Issue 5 , May 2019 , pp. 436 - 440
Copyright
Copyright © JLO (1984) Limited, 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

Dr C Purcell takes responsibility for the integrity of the content of the paper

References

1Mungadi, IA. Refinement on surgical technique: role of magnification. J Surg Tech Case Rep 2010;2:1–2Google Scholar
2Testini, M, Nacchiero, M, Piccinni, G, Portincasa, P, Di Venere, B, Lissidini, G et al. Total thyroidectomy is improved by loupe magnification. Microsurgery 2004;24:39–42Google Scholar
3Mangram, AJ, Horan, TC, Pearson, ML, Silver, LC, Jarvis, WR. Guideline for prevention of surgical site infection, 1999. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) hospital infection control practices advisory committee. Am J Infect Control 1999;27:97–132Google Scholar
4Taylor, G, Gravel, D, Matlow, A, Embree, J, LeSaux, N, Johnston, L et al. Assessing the magnitude and trends in hospital acquired infections in Canadian hospitals through sequential point prevalence surveys. Antimicrob Resist Infect Control 2016;5:19Google Scholar
5Cannon, RB, Houlton, JJ, Mendez, E, Futran, ND. Methods to reduce postoperative surgical site infections after head and neck oncology surgery. Lancet Oncol 2017;18:e405–13Google Scholar
6Anderson, DJ, Kaye, KS. Staphylococcal surgical site infections. Infect Dis Clin North Am 2009;23:53–72Google Scholar
7de Lissovoy, G, Fraeman, K, Hutchins, V, Murphy, D, Song, D, Vaughn, BB. Surgical site infection: incidence and impact on hospital utilization and treatment costs. Am J Infect Control 2009;37:387–97Google Scholar
8Golditz, T, Steib, S, Pfeifer, K, Uder, M, Gelse, K, Janka, R et al. Functional ankle instability as a risk factor for osteoarthritis: using T2-mapping to analyze early cartilage degeneration in the ankle joint of young athletes. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2014;22:1377–85Google Scholar
9Raschka, S, Dempster, L, Bryce, E. Health economic evaluation of an infection prevention and control program: are quality and patient safety programs worth the investment? Am J Infect Control 2013;41:773–7Google Scholar
10World Health Organization. WHO guidelines for safe surgery. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2009Google Scholar
11Saito, Y, Kobayashi, H, Uetera, Y, Yasuhara, H, Kajiura, T, Okubo, T. Microbial contamination of surgical instruments used for laparotomy. Am J Infect Control 2014;42:43–7Google Scholar
12Russotto, V, Cortegiani, A, Raineri, SM, Giarratano, A. Bacterial contamination of inanimate surfaces and equipment in the intensive care unit. J Intensive Care 2015;3:54Google Scholar
13Kramer, A, Schwebke, I, Kampf, G. How long do nosocomial pathogens persist on inanimate surfaces? A systematic review. BMC Infect Dis 2006;6:130Google Scholar
14Sievert, DM, Ricks, P, Edwards, JR, Schneider, A, Patel, J, Srinivasan, A et al. Antimicrobial-resistant pathogens associated with healthcare-associated infections: summary of data reported to the National Healthcare Safety Network at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2009–2010. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2013;34:1–14Google Scholar
15Landers, TF, Hoet, A, Wittum, TE. Swab type, moistening, and preenrichment for Staphylococcus aureus on environmental surfaces. J Clin Microbiol 2010;48:2235–6Google Scholar
16Ratliff, CR, Rodeheaver, GT. Correlation of semi-quantitative swab cultures to quantitative swab cultures from chronic wounds. Wounds 2002;14:329–33Google Scholar
17Woo, KY, Sibbald, RG. A Cross-sectional validation study of using NERDS and STONEES to assess bacterial burden. Ostomy Wound Manage 2009;55:40–8Google Scholar
18Caldwell, NW, Guymon, CH, Aden, JK, Akers, KS, Mann-Salinas, EA. Bacterial contamination of burn unit employee identity cards. J Burn Care Res 2016;37:e470–5Google Scholar
19Hogue, MH, Heilmann, KP, Callaghan, JJ. Wearing ID badges in the operating room environment: is reconsideration warranted? J Arthroplasty 2017;32:2231–3Google Scholar
20Murgier, J, Coste, JF, Cavaignac, E, Bayle-Iniguez, X, Chiron, P, Bonnevialle, P et al. Microbial flora on cell-phones in an orthopedic surgery room before and after decontamination. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 2016;102:1093–6Google Scholar
21Weiner, BK, Kilgore, WB. Bacterial shedding in common spine surgical procedures: headlamp/loupes and the operative microscope. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2007;32:918–20Google Scholar
22O'Hehir, T. See better & work pain free. Hygienetown Magazine 2006;18:6–10Google Scholar