Quantitative analysis of residual protein contamination of podiatry instruments reprocessed through local and central decontamination units

Smith, G.W.G., Goldie, F., Long, S., Lappin, D.F., Ramage, G. and Smith, A.J. (2011) Quantitative analysis of residual protein contamination of podiatry instruments reprocessed through local and central decontamination units. Journal of Foot and Ankle Research, 4(2), (doi:10.1186/1757-1146-4-2)

Smith, G.W.G., Goldie, F., Long, S., Lappin, D.F., Ramage, G. and Smith, A.J. (2011) Quantitative analysis of residual protein contamination of podiatry instruments reprocessed through local and central decontamination units. Journal of Foot and Ankle Research, 4(2), (doi:10.1186/1757-1146-4-2)

[img]
Preview
Text
57601.pdf - Published Version
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution.

1MB

Abstract

<p>Background: The cleaning stage of the instrument decontamination process has come under increased scrutiny due to the increasing complexity of surgical instruments and the adverse affects of residual protein contamination on surgical instruments. Instruments used in the podiatry field have a complex surface topography and are exposed to a wide range of biological contamination. Currently, podiatry instruments are reprocessed locally within surgeries while national strategies are favouring a move toward reprocessing in central facilities. The aim of this study was to determine the efficacy of local and central reprocessing on podiatry instruments by measuring residual protein contamination of instruments reprocessed by both methods. Methods</p> <p>The residual protein of 189 instruments reprocessed centrally and 189 instruments reprocessed locally was determined using a fluorescent assay based on the reaction of proteins with o-phthaldialdehyde/sodium 2-mercaptoethanesulfonate.</p> <p>Results: Residual protein was detected on 72% (n = 136) of instruments reprocessed centrally and 90% (n = 170) of instruments reprocessed locally. Significantly less protein (p < 0.001) was recovered from instruments reprocessed centrally (median 20.62 μg, range 0 - 5705 μg) than local reprocessing (median 111.9 μg, range 0 - 6344 μg).</p> <p>Conclusions: Overall, the results show the superiority of central reprocessing for complex podiatry instruments when protein contamination is considered, though no significant difference was found in residual protein between local decontamination unit and central decontamination unit processes for Blacks files. Further research is needed to undertake qualitative identification of protein contamination to identify any cross contamination risks and a standard for acceptable residual protein contamination applicable to different instruments and specialities should be considered as a matter of urgency.</p>

Item Type:Articles
Status:Published
Refereed:Yes
Glasgow Author(s) Enlighten ID:Lappin, Dr David and Ramage, Professor Gordon and Smith, Professor Andrew
Authors: Smith, G.W.G., Goldie, F., Long, S., Lappin, D.F., Ramage, G., and Smith, A.J.
College/School:College of Medical Veterinary and Life Sciences > School of Medicine, Dentistry & Nursing > Dental School
Journal Name:Journal of Foot and Ankle Research
Publisher:BioMed Central
ISSN:1757-1146
ISSN (Online):1757-1146
Published Online:10 January 2011
Copyright Holders:Copyright © 2011 The Authors
First Published:First published in Journal of Foot and Ankle Research 4:2
Publisher Policy:Reproduced under a Creative Commons License

University Staff: Request a correction | Enlighten Editors: Update this record