PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 9505126

OR barrier materials--necessity or extravagance?

Abstract

The issue at hand, therefore, is not one of reusable versus disposable, but rather the cost-effectiveness and expense associated with use of barrier versus nonbarrier materials. As mandated by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, the need and function of the surgeons' gown barrier is a given. Initially the gown was used to protect the patient from members of the surgical team; its role now is to protect the surgical team members from the patient and the hazards associated with exposure to bloodborne pathogens. As for barrier drapes (i.e., patient, Mayo stand, back table covers), considering the influence of today's antibiotics and the advent of minimally invasive surgical techniques on the incidence of postoperative infection, just how necessary are they? Initially the use of barrier drapes was viewed as a reasonable practice. The problem, however, with any reasonable type of practice of this nature is identifying the kind and quality of supporting evidence and testing the practice itself. If there is no evidence for or against a practice; its advocates make up the process as they go along. In the case of barrier drapes, there were individuals who assumed that there were studies that conclusively demonstrated their need, even though they never sought confirmation to that effect. In the process, whether the drapes were cost-effective escaped criticism, and their use survived over the years because of the "that's the way we've always done it" syndrome. In a comprehensive examination of draping practices written 60 years ago, a physician discusses the myriad sources of contamination that could contribute to postoperative infection. He concluded that "to minimize the chances of contamination, all of these sources must be separately and individually studied." In terms of the influence of barrier surgical drapes, there remains a need for unbiased, statistically valid, conclusive research. Until such data become available, their use cannot be indisputably defended.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

N L Belkin, F T Koch. 1998. OR barrier materials--necessity or extravagance?. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0001-2092(06)62893-7

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Microbial growth in vials of Botulinum toxin following use in clinic.

PURPOSE: Botulinum toxin has various applications in ophthalmology and is used in the outpatient department, where it is often exposed to room temperatures for 3-4 h. The manufacturer's recommendations are that the reconstituted toxin be stored in a refrigerator when not in use and discarded 4 h after reconstitution. The aim of our study was to examine such used bottles of Botulinum toxin for microbial growth after 4 h at room temperature. METHODS AND RESULTS: Eleven consecutive bottles of Botulinum toxin used with aseptic precautions in the Ophthalmology outpatient clinics were exposed to room temperatures for 4 h. These were subsequently analysed for microbial growth. No growth was directly obtained from any of the Botulinum toxin bottles during our study. CONCLUSIONS: This pilot study suggests that if aseptic precautions are followed during the use of Botulinum toxin, the contents of the bottle remain sterile despite being exposed to room temperatures for up to 4 h. This has implications on the use of the reconstituted toxin after the recommended 4 h.

Asepsis↗

Aseptic vitrification of human germinal vesicle oocytes using dimethyl sulfoxide as a cryoprotectant.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the viability of vitrified human germinal vesicle (GV)-oocytes to mature to metaphase II (MII) stage after "rapid" cooling directly in liquid nitrogen in comparison with "slow" cooling in a closed 0.5-mL straw (aseptic system), with or without dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO) in vitrification solution. The possibility of avoiding parthenogenesis of the oocytes after vitrification using DMSO was investigated. DESIGN: In vitro maturation after vitrification. SETTING: Assisted reproduction centers. PATIENT(S): Patients undergoing standard superovulation treatment and having GV-oocytes after follicular puncture. INTERVENTION(S): The GV-oocytes were vitrified with long/short exposure to DMSO using slow or rapid cooling, then warmed and matured in vitro. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Maturation after warming. RESULT(S): Oocyte development up to MII stage after vitrification with DMSO was 71% in the group with "rapid" cooling, and in groups with "slow" cooling, 68% and 72% for long and short exposure to DMSO, respectively. The maturation rate of GV-oocytes after slow cooling without DMSO was 51%. In the vitrification with long-term contact of oocytes with DMSO group, a high rate of parthenogenesis was observed. When vitrification with short-term contact of oocytes with DMSO at room temperature was used, no parthenogenesis was observed. CONCLUSION(S): Cryopreservation of human GV-oocytes in open-pulled straws OPS) using an aseptic slow cooling method gives high maturation rates but only in combination with DMSO. To avoid spontaneous parthenogenesis, the exposure to DMSO must occur for a reduced time and at room temperature.

Asepsis↗