Hostname: page-component-6766d58669-7fx5l Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-18T04:50:27.748Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Sequential cohort study comparing chlorine dioxide wipes with automated washing for decontamination of flexible nasendoscopes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 June 2012

C Q Phua ,
Y Mahalingappa  and
Y Karagama
C Q Phua
Affiliation:
Department of ENT Surgery, Tameside General Hospital, Ashton, UK
Y Mahalingappa
Affiliation:
Department of ENT Surgery, Tameside General Hospital, Ashton, UK
Y Karagama*
Affiliation:
Department of ENT Surgery, Tameside General Hospital, Ashton, UK
*
Address for correspondence: Mr Yakubu Karagama, Department of ENT Surgery, Tameside General Hospital, Fountain Street, Ashton OL6 9RW, UK E-mail: y.karagama@nhs.net
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Introduction:

Flexible nasoendoscope is an important tool in otorhinolaryngology practice. The endoscope needs to be decontaminated prior to use in the next patient. The 2005 ENT-UK guidance for cleaning fibre-optic laryngoscopes stated that the ideal disinfecting agent and process should be effective and have low capital and maintenance costs.

Objective:

To compare the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of chlorine dioxide wipes versus automated washer, for decontamination of flexible nasendoscopes.

Methods:

A sequential cohort, in vitro study was performed to test the efficacy of chlorine dioxide wipes and automated washer. Costs were also calculated.

Results:

After deliberate bacterial contamination of the nasendoscope and subsequent decontamination, swab samples from the endoscope showed Staphylococcus epidermidis growth in 2 per cent (1/50 swabs) of the chlorine dioxide wipe group and in 28 per cent (14/50 swabs) of the automated washer group (p = 0.00). Based on a projected 10-year cost calculation, the automated washer was cheaper.

Conclusion:

Further studies are required to test whether these results are replicable. A similar study should be performed using real patients, to check the significance of improper decontamination.

Keywords

DecontaminationLaryngoscopesEndoscopes

Information

Type
Main Articles
Information
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology , Volume 126 , Issue 8 , August 2012 , pp. 809 - 814
Copyright
Copyright © JLO (1984) Limited 2012

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

Presented as a poster at the North of England Otolaryngology Spring Meeting, 11 March 2011, Darlington, UK

References

1 Foweraker, JE. The laryngoscope as a potential source of crossinfection. J Hosp Infect 1995;29:315–6CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2 Esler, MD, Baines, LC, Wilkinson, DJ, Langford, RM. Decontamination of laryngoscopes: a survey of national practice. Anaesthesia 1999;54:587–92CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3 Lim, M, Gupta, D. Flexible naso-endoscopic decontamination – rationalizing the next step forward. J Hosp Infect 2006;62:136–40CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4 Lubbe, DE, Fagan, JJ. South African survey on disinfection techniques for the flexible nasopharyngoscope. J Laryngol Otol 2003;117:811–4CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5 Banfield, GK, Hinton, AE. A national survey of disinfection techniques for flexible nasoendoscopes in UK ENT out-patient departments. J Laryngol Otol 2000;113:202–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6 Guidance of decontamination and sterilization of rigid and flexible endoscopes. In: http://www.entuk.org/news/index_html?news_id=284 [6 February 2011]Google Scholar
7 Guidelines for cleaning fibreoptic laryngoscopes. In: www.entuk.org/members/publications/scopesfullweb2.pdf [6 February 2011]Google Scholar
8 Rejchrt, S, Cermal, P, Pavlatova, L, Mickova, E, Bures, J. Bacteriologic testing of endoscopes after high-level disinfection. Gastrointest Endosc 2004;60:6–8 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9 Muscarella, LF. Prevention of disease transmission during flexible laryngoscopy. Am J Infect Control 2007;35:536–44CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10 Birnie, GG, Quigley, EM, Clements, GB, Follet, EAC, Watkinson, G. Endoscopic transmission of hepatitis B virus. Gut 1983;24:171–4CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11 Anonymous. Colonoscopes may spread HCV and HPV. AIDS Patient Care STDS 2003;7:257–8Google Scholar
12 Michele, TM, Cronin, WA, Graham, NM, Dwyer, DM, Pope, DS, Harrington, S et al. Transmission of Mycobacterium tuberculosis by a fiberoptic bronchoscope. Identification by DNA fingerprinting. JAMA 1997;278:1093–5CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13 Kaczmarek, RG, Moore, RM Jr, McCrohan, J, Goldmann, DA, Reynolds, C, Caquelin, C et al. Multi-state investigation of the actual disinfection/sterilization of endoscopes in health care facilities. Am J Med 1992;92:257–61CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14 Muscarella, LF. Inconsistencies in endoscope-reprocessing and infection-control guidelines: the importance of endoscope drying. Am J Gastroenterol 2006;101:2147–54CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15 Nelson, DB, Jarvis, WR, Rutala, WA, Foxx-Orenstein, AE, Isenberg, G, Dash, GR et al. Multi-society guideline for reprocessing flexible gastrointestinal endoscopes. Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2003;24:532–7CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16 NHS Estates/Department of Health. Health Technical Memorandum 2030. Washer – Disinfectors. London: Department of Health, 1997 Google Scholar