Optimization of rigid endoscope drying method based on negative pressure suction device: Evaluation of its impact on drying efficiency and occupational safety

  • Lian Zhang Central Sterile Supply Department, The First Affiliated Hospital of Jinan University, Guangzhou 510632, China
  • Xiuyue Zeng Central Sterile Supply Department, The First Affiliated Hospital of Jinan University, Guangzhou 510632, China
  • Haoling Zheng Central Sterile Supply Department, The First Affiliated Hospital of Jinan University, Guangzhou 510632, China
  • Zhishan Tan Central Sterile Supply Department, The First Affiliated Hospital of Jinan University, Guangzhou 510632, China
  • Lihong Deng Central Sterile Supply Department, The First Affiliated Hospital of Jinan University, Guangzhou 510632, China
  • Hongchang Chen Central Sterile Supply Department, The First Affiliated Hospital of Jinan University, Guangzhou 510632, China
DOI: https://doi.org/10.62617/mcb480
Keywords: negative pressure suction device; rigid endoscope; drying efficiency; occupational safety
Article ID: 480

Abstract

Methods: A randomized controlled trial design was employed. Four types of rigid endoscopes were selected: fiber optic instruments, lens instruments, forceps instruments, and tubular instruments, with 100 samples from each category. The samples were assigned to a control group (traditional drying method) and an experimental group (negative pressure suction device). The experimental group used a negative pressure suction device combined with a drying cabinet for drying, while the control group employed wiping, a high-pressure air gun, and a drying cabinet. Drying time for each type of instrument was measured, and noise levels during the drying process were assessed using a noise meter. The data were analyzed using independent sample t-tests for intergroup comparisons, with a significance level set at P < 0.05. Results: The experimental group showed significantly shorter drying times for fiber optic instruments, lens instruments, and forceps instruments compared to the control group. The drying time for fiber optic instruments in the experimental group was 316.9 ± 1.97 s, significantly shorter than the control group’s 326.53 ± 4.43 s (t = 6.28, P < 0.001). The drying time for lens instruments in the experimental group was 315.07 ± 1.80 s, compared to 320.54 ± 4.21 s in the control group (t = 3.78, P < 0.001). However, for tubular instruments, the experimental group’s drying time was 660 s, markedly longer than the control group’s 327.04 ± 4.99 s (t = 211.09, P < 0.001). In terms of noise levels, the experimental group exhibited significantly lower noise exposure for fiber optic and lens instruments compared to the control group. The average noise for fiber optic instruments was 45.79 ± 0.17 dB in the experimental group, while it was 63.73 ± 0.67 dB in the control group (t = 82.55, P < 0.001). Conclusion: The negative pressure suction device significantly improves the drying efficiency of rigid endoscopes, especially for instruments with simpler structures, and effectively reduces noise exposure, enhancing occupational safety. However, for complex tubular instruments, further optimization of the negative pressure suction device is required.

References

1. Barakat, M., Huang, R., Banerjee, S. Comparison of automated and manual drying in the elimination of residual endoscope working channel fluid after reprocessing (with video). Gastrointestinal endoscopy. 2019, 89 1, 124-132.e2 . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2018.08.033.

2. Perumpail, R., Marya, N., McGinty, B., Muthusamy, V. Endoscope reprocessing: Comparison of drying effectiveness and microbial levels with an automated drying and storage cabinet with forced filtered air and a standard storage cabinet. American journal of infection control. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajic.2019.02.016.

3. Nerandzic, M., Antloga, K., Litto, C., Robinson, N. Efficacy of Flexible Endoscope Drying Using Novel Endoscope Test Articles that Allow Direct Visualization of the Internal Channel Systems. American journal of infection control. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajic.2020.08.034.

4. Marya, N., Muthusamy, R. Methods for Endoscope Reprocessing. Gastrointestinal endoscopy clinics of North America. 2020, 30 4, 665-675. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giec.2020.06.002.

5. Sara, H., Hafida, H., Wafa, D., et al. Reprocessing effectiveness of gastrointestinal endoscopes in western Algeria hospitals: Infectious risk and biofilm formation. South Asian Journal of Experimental Biology. 2021. https://doi.org/10.38150/sajeb.11(3).p249-259.

6. Hoffman, P., Bradley, C., Line, S. Decontamination of flexible endoscopes. Decontamination in Hospitals and Healthcare. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1533/9780857096692.3.620.

7. Guadagnin, S., Costa, D., Primo, M., et al. Significant increased bacterial contamination with endoscope overnight and weekend storage times. Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology. 2023, 38, 1559 - https://doi.org/10.1111/jgh.16224.

8. Alfa, M., Singh, H. Impact of wet storage and other factors on biofilm formation and contamination of patient-ready endoscopes: a narrative review. Gastrointestinal endoscopy. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2019.08.043.

9. Rudhart, S., Günther, F., Dapper, L., et al. UV light-based reprocessing of flexible endoscopes without working channel in Oto-Rhino-Laryngology: an effective method? European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology. 2021, 278, 4075 - 4080. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-021-06737-1.

10. Behm, T., Robinson, N. Sterilization Central: Drying and Storage of Flexible Endoscopes: An Area of Growing Concern.. Biomedical instrumentation & technology. 2020, 54 3, 223-227 . https://doi.org/10.2345/0899-8205-54.3.223.

11. Tian, H., Sun, J., Guo, S., et al. The Effectiveness of Drying on Residual Droplets, Microorganisms, and Biofilms in Gastrointestinal Endoscope Reprocessing: A Systematic Review. Gastroenterology Research and Practice. 2021, https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/6615357.

12. Speth, J. Guidelines in Practice: Processing Flexible Endoscopes. AORN journal. 2021, 118 3, 169-178 . https://doi.org/10.1002/aorn.13982.

13. Beilenhoff, U. Endoscope reprocessing: How to perform an adequate air drying? Endoscopy International Open, 11, E440 - E442. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1055/a-2066-8191.

14. Cho, S. Endoscopes that Complete Pre-Cleaning may be Stored Overnight until Next Morning for the Subsequent Reprocessing. Clinical Endoscopy. 2021, 54, 449 - 450. https://doi.org/10.5946/ce.2021.135.

15. Barakat, M., Banerjee, S. Novel Algorithms for Reprocessing, Drying and Storing Endoscopes. Gastrointestinal endoscopy clinics of North America. 2020, 30 4, 677-691. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giec.2020.06.003.

16. Kwakman, J., Vos, M., Bruno, M. Investigation of the efficacy of an innovative endoscope drying and storage method in a simulated ERCP setting. Endoscopy International Open. 2020, 11, E419 - E425. https://doi.org/10.1055/a-2017-3872.

17. Quynh, A., Duc, V. Compliance with the flexible endoscope handling procedure at the Endoscopy Department of the Central Highlands General Hospital, in 2021. Journal of Health and Development Studies. 2022. https://doi.org/10.38148/jhds.0601skpt21-060.

18. Lhermette, P., Robertson, E., Sobel, D. Principles of rigid endoscopy and endosurgery. 2020, 112-127. https://doi.org/10.22233/9781910443620.8.

19. Cozart, C. Scoping out the Situation-One Hospital’s Review of Flexible Endoscope Handling and Reprocessing Methods Within Acute Care and Ambulatory Settings. American Journal of Infection Control. 2020, 48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajic.2020.06.061.

20. Yassin, M., Dixon, H., Nerandzic, M., Donskey, C. 819. How effective is alcohol flush and drying cycle of automatic endoscope reprocessor (AER): Stripped Endoscope (SE) model. Open Forum Infectious Diseases. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofaa439.1008.

21. Shang, R., Liu, J., Luo, Z., et al. Effect of an automated flexible endoscope channel brushing system on improving reprocessing quality: a randomized controlled study. Endoscopy. 2022, 55, 636 - 642. https://doi.org/10.1055/a-2009-4735.

22. Meeusen, V., McLean, T. A Single-Blind Study Testing the Preparation Accuracy of Bedside Precleaning Solutions Used for Flexible Endoscopes. Gastroenterology Nursing. 2023, 46, 144 - 150. https://doi.org/10.1097/SGA.0000000000000721.

23. Almeida AGCDS, Bruna CQM, Moriya GAA, et al. Impact of negative pressure system on microbiological air quality in a Central Sterile Supply Department.J Occup Health. 2021 Jan;63(1):e12234.

24. Ofstead CL, Hopkins KM, Preston AL, et al. Fluid retention in endoscopes: A real-world study on drying effectiveness.Am J Infect Control.2024 Jun;52(6):635-643.

Published
2024-12-06
How to Cite
Zhang, L., Zeng, X., Zheng, H., Tan, Z., Deng, L., & Chen, H. (2024). Optimization of rigid endoscope drying method based on negative pressure suction device: Evaluation of its impact on drying efficiency and occupational safety. Molecular & Cellular Biomechanics, 21(3), 480. https://doi.org/10.62617/mcb480
Issue
Vol. 21 No. 3 (2024)
Section
Article

Copyright (c) 2024 Lian Zhang, Xiuyue Zeng, Haoling Zheng, Zhishan Tan, Lihong Deng, Hongchang Chen

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Copyright on all articles published in this journal is retained by the author(s), while the author(s) grant the publisher as the original publisher to publish the article.

Articles published in this journal are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International, which means they can be shared, adapted and distributed provided that the original published version is cited.