- Browse by Subject
Browsing by Subject "Sterilization"
Now showing 1 - 7 of 7
Results Per Page
Sort Options
Item Effectiveness of the Glass Bead Sterilizer for Sterilizing Surgical Instruments(American Association for Laboratory Animal Science, 2022) Skiles, Beth; Johnston, Nancy A.; Hendrix, G. Kenitra; Hickman, Debra L.; Laboratory Animal Resource Center, School of MedicineSurvival rodent surgery requires the use of sterile instruments for each animal, which can be challenging when performing multiple surgeries on batches of animals. Glass bead sterilizers (GBS) are widely considered to facilitate this practice by sterilizing the tips of the instruments between animals. However, other disciplines have raised questions about the efficacy of the GBS, especially when used with surgical tools that have grooves or ridges that may contain organic debris. In this study, we evaluated the efficacy of the GBS to sterilize instruments commonly used in rodent surgery by intentionally contaminating a selection of instruments with a standardized bacterial broth inoculated with Staphylococcus aureus and Escherichia coli. As expected, a simple ethanol wipe was ineffective in sterilizing instruments in all treatment groups. An ethanol wipe followed by GBS was effective in sterilizing 82.5% (99 of 120) of the instruments. Our study suggests that the GBS may not be effective for consistent sterilization of surgical instruments.Item Jukes Perpetuated(Journal of the Indiana State Medical Association, 1917-08-01) Bowers, Rose AlexanderItem Laws of the state of Indiana, passed at the ninety-third regular session of the General Assembly ... 1935(State of Indiana, 1935-01-01) Indiana, General AssemblyItem A Survey of Methods Used to Treat Contaminated Orthodontic Instruments: And an Experimental Comparison of the Three Cleaning Methods Most Commonly Used(1971) Halberg, SeymourThis study involved two areas of investigation. First, questionairres were sent to 350 orthodontists in order to determine the types and frequency of methods used to treat contaminated instruments in their practices. Two hundred eighty replies were received. Second, using orthotolidine reagent strips, three commonly-used cleaning methods (alcohol wipe, soap and water scrub, and ultrasonic cleaning) were compared as to their effectiveness in the removal of a potentially dangerous contaminant, blood, from a representative orthodontic instrument, the band pusher. A sample of 15 instruments was tested. The survey showed that a variety of cleaning, disinfecting, and sterilizing procedures were used in various combinations in the practices surveyed. Less than 4.3% of the respondants treated hand instruments -- the group most likely to be contaminated with blood -- in a manner acceptable to various authorities on the subject, such as: The Expert Committee on Hepatitis of the World Health Organization, the United States Institutes of Health, and The Council on Dental Therapeutics of the American Dental Association. Of the three cleaning methods tested, ultrasonic cleaning was the most effective for removing blood from the test instruments, and alcohol wiping was least effective. Both alcohol wiping and soap and water scrubbing left detectable amounts of blood on all instruments tested. Since: a) orthodontic instruments may be contaminated with blood during routine treatment procedures, b) asymptomatic carriers of serum hepatitis may constitute at least 1% of the population, and the viruses of both forms of viral hepatitis may be found in the serum of 5 - 35% of apparently healthy persons, c) as little as .00005 ml of infected blood is capable of transmitting the disease, and d) a high percentage of the sample of orthodontists responding used inadequate methods to treat their instruments, the danger of transmission of viral hepatitis exists in the great majority of orthodontic practices surveyed in this study.Item A Survey of Sterilization/Disinfection Techniques Used By Orthodontists in the U.S.(1986) Burns, Richard H.; Garner, LaForrest D.; Barton, Paul; Dirlam, James H.; Miller, James R.; Stone, EdwardQuestionnaires were sent to 500 orthodontists in all states of the U.S., inquiring about the methods of sterilization used for hand instruments (mirrors, explorers, band pushers, etc.) and hinged instruments (pliers). The practitioners were asked if their sterilization/disinfection methods had been changed recently, and if any changes in methods were due to the risk of disease transmission. Opinions were also solicited regarding the importance of complete sterilization (i.e., destruction of all organisms). An opportunity was provided to rate the effectiveness of the sterilization method in use. Finally, information was requested on any barrier methods used routinely. The most commonly used method for hand and hinged instruments was cold sterilization with a 2% glutaraldehyde solution. This solution was used by 46.5% of the office for hand instruments, and by 33.5% of the offices for hinged instruments. Quaternary ammonium compounds were used by 26.5% of the offices for hand instruments, and by 19.2% for hinged instruments. Wiping with alcohol was used by 30.4% of the offices for hinged instruments. The most common heat sterilization method used was the chemiclave system (11.5% for hand instruments and 9.1% for hinged). Of the offices surveyed, 45.5% had changed their methods within the past two years. Of that group, 66.9% had changed as a result of the increased problem with transmissible diseases. Of the offices that had not changed recently, 64.1% were considering doing so as a result of the disease transmission concern. Complete sterilization was considered very important by 47.5% of respondents, while 41.6% ranked it somewhat important. Of the orthodontists surveyed, 16.1% felt that they achieved an excellent level of asepsis in their offices, followed by 58.7% who rated it good, 23.4% average, and 1.4% poor. Protective eyewear was worn by 52.4 % of those surveyed, while gloves and masks were worn routinely by 21.3% and 21.6% of the practitioners, respectively. On the basis of the literature review, the most effective cold sterilization method (other than ethylene oxide) for the orthodontic office appears to be a 2% glutaraldehyde solution. This technique will not corrode plier joints or the stainless steel surfaces. The best heat sterilization method for the orthodontic office is the chemiclave system, due to its lack of corrosion problems, as well as its relatively rapid cycle time. Ultrasonic cleaning of all instruments prior to sterilization is highly recommended.Item Validation of the Bio-Response Solutions Human-28 Low-Temperature Alkaline Hydrolysis System(Mary Ann Liebert, 2019) Denys, Gerald A.; Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, School of MedicineIntroduction: High temperature alkaline hydrolysis (AH) is recognized as an alternative method for sterilization and disposition of animal carcasses and human remains. The aim of this study is to validate the low temperature (LT) AH process specific to its use in the Bio-Response Solutions, Inc. Human-28 LT System. Methods: A 313-lb pig was processed using the manufacturers recommended cycle parameters. Stainless steel sample vials containing spore suspensions of Geobacillus stearothermophilus were implanted into the pig's deep tissue to validate the efficacy of the process conditions. Spore suspensions of Bacillus thuringiensis were suspended in the vessel headspace to validate sterilization. The spore challenge was greater than the recommended 106 log used to determine sterilization. MALDI-TOF mass spectrometry analysis was used to validate the destruction of prion-sized particles in processed effluent. Results: Complete inactivation of spores and digestion of animal tissue were achieved after processing in the Bio-Response Solutions Human-28 LT Alkaline Hydrolysis System. Complete inactivation of spores was achieved when exposed to heat in the animal carcass and headspace. No peptide fragments larger than 2500 Da were observed in the treatment effluent. Discussion: The Bio-Response Solutions, Inc. Human-28 LT Alkaline Hydrolysis System was as effective as high-temperature alkaline hydrolysis for use on animal and human tissue. Conclusion: LT AH for tissue and bodies exceeded the sterility assurance level III of the US State and Territorial Association on Alternative Treatment Technologies and sterility requirements for animal biosafety level-3 and -4 facilities. LT AH process validated destruction of prion-sized particles.