PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 11073730

Endoscope washers--a protocol for their use.

Abstract

A protocol for the disinfection of gastroduodenoscopes, retrograde cholangiopancreatography endoscopes and colonoscopes using endoscope washers is described. The process recommends initial manual washing with a disinfectant containing didecyldimethylammonium chloride, surfactants and enzymes, a second washing in the endoscope washer using a detergent associated with a bacteriostatic, fungistatic substance (benzoisothiazolone) and finally the use of a 2% glutaraldehyde product buffered at pH6. After treatment with 2% Steranios added to the washer, less than 1 micro-organism/ml liquid was found in the following units: 83% of the colonoscopes, 83% of the oesophagogastroduodenoscopes, 83% of the main channels of the retrograde cholangiopancreatography endoscopes and 75% of the auxiliary channels of the latter instruments. In 14% of the colonoscopes, 42% of the gastroduodenoscopes, 42% of the main and 50% of auxiliary channels in the retrograde cholangiopancreatography endoscopes there were no signs of microbial growth in the wash liquid. The results obtained indicated that this protocol allowed adequate disinfection of the endoscope channels, structurally the most difficult part of the instrument to disinfect. Emphasis is given to the degree by which instrument contamination can increase during overnight storage, suggesting that endoscopes need to be submitted to further disinfection after overnight storage. Moreover, the water flowing into the washers can also cause instrument recontamination, particularly during the final rinses. Therefore, to better safeguard the health of patients undergoing endoscopy, special care must be taken to maintain the filters and disinfect the washers themselves, no matter how effective the disinfection protocol used may be.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

M G Marchetti, G Salvatorelli, G Finzi, P Cugini. 2000. Endoscope washers--a protocol for their use.. https://doi.org/10.1053/jhin.2000.0832

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Endoscopic stenting in benign pancreatic diseases.

The role of endoscopic therapy in the management of pancreatic diseases is continuously evolving; at present, most pathological conditions of the pancreas are successfully treated by endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) or both. Endoscopic placement of stents has played and still plays a major role in the treatment of chronic pancreatitis, pseudocysts, pancreas divisum, main pancreatic duct injuries, pancreatic fistulae, complications of acute pancreatitis, recurrent idiopathic pancreatitis and in the prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis. These stents are currently routinely placed to reduce intraductal hypertension, bypass obstructing stones, restore lumen patency in cases with dominant, symptomatic strictures, seal main pancreatic duct disruption, drain pseudocysts or fluid collections, treat symptomatic major or minor papilla sphincter stenosis, and prevent procedure-induced acute pancreatitis. The present review aims at updating and discussing techniques, indications and results of endoscopic pancreatic duct stent placement in acute and chronic inflammatory diseases of the pancreas.

Cholangiopancreatography, Endoscopic Retrograde↗

Optimizing choledocholithiasis management: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

HYPOTHESIS: Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is more cost-effective for managing incidental choledocholithiasis (CDL) after laparoscopic cholecystectomy and intraoperative cholangiogram (LC/IOC) than laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE). DESIGN: A cost-effectiveness analysis was performed to compare ERCP with LCBDE. Sensitivity analyses were performed to determine the key contributors to cost-effectiveness between the 2 treatment options. SETTING: Costs were approached from the institutional perspective considering a typical patient undergoing LC/IOC at a large referral center. PATIENTS: The base case patient evaluated was a woman 18 years of age or older with symptomatic cholelithiasis and incidental CDL discovered at the time of LC/IOC. INTERVENTIONS: Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography with drainage procedure performed after LC/IOC or LCBDE during LC/IOC. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Costs, quality-adjusted life years gained, mean cost-effectiveness ratios, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. RESULTS: In the base case analysis, ERCP was the optimal treatment choice with a cost of $24 300 for 0.9 quality-adjusted life years gained compared with $28 400 and 0.88 quality-adjusted life years for LCBDE. Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography remained the optimal strategy for CDL in multiway probabilistic sensitivity analysis. If LCBDE were performed and the cost of a potential operative case lost was $3100 or less and the cost of ERCP hospitalization was $18 000 or more, then LCBDE became the preferred treatment for CDL. CONCLUSIONS: Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography was both less costly and more effective than LCBDE. Factors important to choosing the best strategy for CDL management included the cost of a potential case lost due to LCBDE performance and the cost of ERCP hospitalization.

Cholangiopancreatography, Endoscopic Retrograde↗