%2 GLUTERALDEHİT SOLUSYONUNUN DEZENFEKTAN ETKİNLİĞİ SOLUSYONUN YAŞLANMASI İLE DEĞİŞİR Mİ?

Year 2022, Volume: 12 Issue: 3, 410 - 414, 30.05.2022

Harun Altınayak , Sedef Zeliha Öner

Abstract

Giriş:Çalışmamızda %2 gluteraldehit solusyonunun dezenfektan etkinliğinin solusyonun yaşlanması ile değişime uğrayıp uğramadığının tespiti amaçlanmıştır.
Materyal-metot:Çalışmamızda cerrahi aletlerde bulunan metal, plastik ve cam malzemeleri taklit etmek adına 2 cm uzunluğunda k telinden elde edilen metal, serum setlerinden elde edilen plastik ve cam bilyeler kullanıldı. Her birinden 20’şer adeti solusyonun1.,14. ve 28. gününde Klepsiella Pneumoniae, Staphilococcus Aerius, Pseudomonas Aeruginosa, Escherichia Coli ve Maya ile kontamine edildi. 10’ar tanesi %2 gluteraldehit solusyon havuzundan plastik pet bardaklara alınan gluteraldehit solusyonu içine her bir parça ayrı pet bardaklarda olacak şekilde atıldı ve 15 dakika süre ile solusyon içerisinde bekletildi. Sonrasında malzemeler bardaklardan her bir parça için ayrı steril forseps kullanılarak alındı. Diğer 10’ar adeti 1 dakika boyunca serum fizyolojik solüsyon ile yıkandı. İşlemler sonrasında bekletilmeden mikrobiyoloji laboratuarına gönderilerek EMB agar ve kanlı agarda kültürlendi.
Sonuçlar: %2 alkalen gluteral solüsyonu ile dezenfekte edilen metal, plastik ve cam malzemelerde 1.,14. ve 28. günde üreme tespit edilemedi. Kontrol gruplarında ise sırası ile %53.3, %50 ve %63.3 oranlarında kontaminasyonda kullanılan mikroorganizmalardan bir ve ya birkaçında üreme tespit edildi.
Çıkarımlar:%2 alkalen gluteral solüsyonu hazırlanması ve kullanılmasında kılavuz ve üretici önerilerine dikkat edilmesi halinde solüsyonun yaşlanmasından etkilenmeden aktif olduğu süre boyunca etkin bir dezenfeksiyon sağlar.

Keywords

İnfection, Sterilization, Disinfection, Gluteraldehyde, Arthroscopic instrument

Supporting Institution

Araştırmanın tüm giderleri çalışmacılar tarafından karşılanmıştır. Gerçek yada tüzel kişilerden herhangi bir fon alınmamıştır.

Project Number

Araştırma herhangi bir proje altında gerçekleşmemiştir.

DOES THE DISINFECTANT EFFICACY OF THE 2% GLUTERALDEHIDE SOLUTION CHANGE WITH THE AGING OF THE SOLUTION?

Abstract

Purpose:In our study, it was aimed to determine whether the disinfectant efficacy of 2% glutaraldehyde solution changes with the aging of the solution.
Methods: In our study, metal obtained from k-wire, plastic obtained from serum sets, and glass balls were used to imitate metal, plastic, and glass materials found in surgical instruments. 20 of each material were contaminated with Klebsiella pneumoniae (K. pneumoniae), Staphylococcus aureus (S. aureus),Pseudomonas aeruginosa (P. aeruginosa), Escherichia coli (E. coli), and Yeast on the 1st, 14th, and 28th days of the solution. 10 of them were thrown into 2% glutaraldehyde solution in different glasses and kept in the solution for 15 minutes. Subsequently, materials were taken from the glasses using separate sterile forceps for each piece. The other 10 were washed with physiological saline solution for 1 minute. After the procedures, they were sent to the microbiology laboratory without waiting and inoculated on routine media, and Gram staining was performed simultaneously. The identification of strains was carried out by conventional methods.
Results: No growth was detected on the 1st, 14th, and 28th days in all metal, plastic, and glass materials disinfected with 2% alkaline glutaraldehyde solution. In the control groups, growth rates were 53.3%, 50%, and 63.3%, respectively.
Conclusions: If the guidelines and manufacturer's recommendations are followed in the preparation and use of 2% alkaline glutaraldehyde solution, it provides an effective disinfection without being affected by the aging of the solution.

Keywords

İnfection, Sterilization, Disinfection, Gluteraldehyde, Arthroscopic instrument

Project Number

Araştırma herhangi bir proje altında gerçekleşmemiştir.

References

• 1-Rutala WA (1996) Disinfection and sterilization. In: Mayhall CG (Ed). Hospital epidemiology and infection control. First ed. Maryland: Williams and Wilkins 913-55.
• 2-Crow S, Metcalf RW, Beck WC, et al (1983) Disinfection or sterilization? Four views on arthroscopes. As&c Operatini Room Nurses J 37:854-868.
• 3-Loffer FD (1990) Disinfection vs. sterilization of gynaecologic laparoscopy equipment. The experience of the Phoenix Surgicenter. J Reprod Med 25:263-266.
• 4-Ajemian E, Andrews L, Hryb K, et al (1987) Hospital acquired infections after arthroscopic knee surgery. A probable environmental source. Am J Infect Control 15:159-162. 5-Johnson LL, Schneider DA, Austin MD, et al (1982) Two percent glutaraldehyde: a disinfectant in arthroscopy and arthroscopic surgery J Bone Joint Surg 64:237-239.
• 6-Legemate JD, Kamphuis GM, Freund JE, et al (2019) Pre-use ureteroscope contamination after high-level disinfection: reprocessing effectiveness and the relation with cumulative ureteroscope use. J Urol 201:1144-1151. doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000000108
• 7-Ofstead CL, Heymann OL, Quick MR, et al (2018) Residual moisture and waterborne pathogens inside flexible endoscopes: evidence from a multisite study of endoscope drying effectiveness. Am J Infect Control 46:689-696. doi.org/10.1016/j.ajic.2018.03.002
• 8-Snyder GM, Wright SB, Smithey A, et al (2017) Randomized comparison of 3 high-level disinfection and sterilization procedures for duodenoscopes Gastroenterology 153:1018-1025. doi.org/10.1053/j.gastro.2017.06.052
• 9-Johnson LL (1981) Diagnostic and Surgical Arthroscopy: The Knee and Other Joints. Ed. 2. St. Louis, C. V. Mosby
• 10-Bucx MJ, De Gast HM, Veldhuis J, et al (2003) The effect of mechanical cleaning and thermal disinfection on light intensity provided by fibrelight Macintosh laryngoscopes. Anaesthesia 58:461-465. doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2044.2003.03124.x
• 11-Fuselier HA, Mason C (1997) Liquid sterilization versus high level disinfection in the urologic office. Urology 50:337-340. doi.org/10.1016/S0090-4295(97)00218-5
• 12-British Society of Gastroenterology Endoscopy Commitee (1993) Aldehyde disinfectants and health in endoscopy units. Gut 34:1641±1645.
• 13-Ayliffe GAJ, Babb JR, Bradley CR (1992) Sterilization of arthroscopes and laparoscopes. J Hosp Infect 22:265–269.
• 14-Bailly JL, Chambon M, Peigue-Lafeuille H, et al (1991) Activity of glutaraldehyde at low concentrations (<2%) against poliovirus and its relevance to gastrointestinal endoscope disinfection procedures. Appl Environ Microbiol 57:1156-1160
• 15- Foliente RL, Kovacs BJ, Aprecio RM, et al (2001) Efficacy of high-level disinfectants for reprocessing GI endoscopes in simulated-use testing Gastrointest Endosc 53:456-462. doi.org/10.1067/mge.2001.113380
• 16-Vesley D, Melson J, Stanley P (1999) Microbial bioburden in endoscope reprocessing and an in-use evaluation of the high-level disinfection capabilities of Cidex PA. Gastroenterol Nurs 22: 63-68. doı: 10.1097/00001610-199903000-00007
• 17-Kumarage J, Khonyongwa K, Khan A, et al (2019) Transmission of multi-drug resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa between two flexible ureteroscopes and an outbreak of urinary tract infection: The fragility of endoscope decontamination. J Hosp Infect 102:89-94. doi.org/10.1016/j.jhin.2019.02.015
• 18-Ofstead CL, Heymann OL, Quick MR,et al (2017) The effectiveness of sterilization for flexible ureteroscopes: a real-world study. Am J Infect Control 45:888-895. doi.org/10.1016/j.ajic.2017.03.016
• 19-Ofstead CL, Hopkins KM, Eiland JE, et al (2019) Widespread clinical use of simethicone, insoluble lubricants, and tissue glue during endoscopy: a call to action for infection preventionists. Am J Infect Control 47:666-670. doi.org/10.1016/j.ajic.2019.02.012
• 20-Ofstead CL, Wetzler HP, Heymann OL, et al (2017) Longitudinal assessment of reprocessing effectiveness for colonoscopes and gastroscopes: results of visual inspections, biochemical markers, and microbial cultures. Am J Infect Control 45:e26-e33. doi.org/10.1016/j.ajic.2016.10.017
• 21-Seidelman JL, Wallace RJ, Iakhiaeva E, et al (2019) Mycobacterium avium pseudo-outbreak associated with an outpatient bronchoscopy clinic: lessons for reprocessing Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 40:106-108. doı: https://doi.org/10.1017/ice.2018.298
• 22-Leach ED (1981) A new synergized glutaraldehyde-phenate sterilizing solution and concentrated disinfectant. Infect Control 2:26-30. doi.org/10.1017/S0195941700053704
• 23-Miner NA, Ross C (1991) Clinical evaluation of ColdSpor, a glutaraldehyde-phenolic disinfectant. Respir Care 36:104-109.
• 24-Leong D, Dorsey C, Klapp M (1991)Dilution of glutaraldehyde by automatic endoscope machine washers: the need for a quality control program. Am. J. Infect. Control 19:86.
• 25-Vhyman CA, McDonald SA, Zoutman D (1991) Unsuspected dilution of glutaraldehyde in an automatic washer for flexible fibreoptic endoscopes. Can. J. Infect. Control 6:91-93.
• 26-Cole EC, W. Rutala WA, Nessen L, et al (1990) Effect of methodology, dilution, and exposure time on the tuberculocidal activity of glutaraldehyde-based disinfectants. Appl Environ. Microbiol 56:1813-1817.
• 27-Mbithi JN, Springthorpe VS, Sattar SA, et al (1993) Bactericidal, virucidal, and mycobactericidal activities of reused alkaline gluteraldehyde in an endoscopy unit. J. Clin. Microbiol 31:2988–2995
• 28-Rutala WA(1996) APIC guideline for selection and use of disinfectants. Am J Infect Control 24:313-342.
• 29-Rutala WA (1997) Disinfection, sterilization and waste disposal. In: Wenzel RP, ed. Prevention and Control of Nosocomial Infections. Baltimore, MD: Williams & Wilkins 539-594
• 30-Phillips JE, Crane TP, Noy M, et al (2006) Grimer The incidence of deep prosthetic infections in a specialist orthopaedic hospital: a 15-year prospective survey. J Bone Joint Surg Br 88:943-948