Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-9q27g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-18T09:27:22.145Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Assessment of Residual Moisture and Maintenance of Sterility in Surgical Instrument Sets after Sterilization

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 May 2015

Camille Fayard ,
Christophe Lambert ,
Catherine Guimier-Pingault ,
Marion Levast  and
Raphaelle Germi
Camille Fayard*
Affiliation:
Unité de stérilisation, Centre Hospitalier Métropole Savoie, Rhône-Alpes, France
Christophe Lambert
Affiliation:
Unité de stérilisation, Centre Hospitalier Métropole Savoie, Rhône-Alpes, France
Catherine Guimier-Pingault
Affiliation:
Unité de stérilisation, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Grenoble, Rhône-Alpes, France
Marion Levast
Affiliation:
Laboratoire de Microbiologie, Centre Hospitalier Métropole Savoie, Rhône-Alpes, France
Raphaelle Germi
Affiliation:
Laboratoire de Virology, Département des Agents Infectieux, Institut de Biologie et de Pathologie, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Grenoble, Rhône-Alpes, France Unit of Virus Host Cell Interactions, Rhône-Alpes, France
*
Address correspondence to Dr Camille Fayard, Centre Hospitalier Métropole Savoie, Unité de Stérilisation, 73011 Chambéry CEDEX, Rhône-Alpes, France (camille.fayard@ch-chambery.fr).
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Good sterilization practices include discarding items containing residual moisture after steam sterilization. In this small laboratory study, however, the presence of residual water did not appear to compromise the sterility of surgical instruments in 2 commonly used types of packaging during routine storage after steam sterilization.

Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2015;36(8):990–992

Type
Concise Communications
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 36 , Issue 8 , August 2015 , pp. 990 - 992
Copyright
© 2015 by The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America. All rights reserved 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Arrêté du 22 juin 2001 relatif aux Bonnes Pratiques de Pharmacie Hospitalière. JO n°152 du 03 juillet 2001. LegiFrance public information service website. www.legifrance.gouv.fr. Published 2001. Accessed January 19, 2015.Google Scholar
2. Association of Perioperative Registered Nurses (AORN). Recommended practices for sterilization. In: Perioperative Standards and Recommended Practices. Denver, CO: AORN; 2013:513–540.Google Scholar
3. Spry, C. Understanding current steam sterilization recommendations and guidelines. AORN J 2008;88:537–550.Google Scholar
4. Bruna, CQ, Pinto, FM, Graziano, KU. The influence of environmental temperature and air humidity on the maintenance of sterility of surgical instruments sterilized in different wraps. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2012;33:1278–1280.Google Scholar
5. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Standard operating procedure for the AOAC sporicidal activity of disinfectants test (Bacillus × porcelain component only). SOP No. MB-15-01; November 2006.Google Scholar
6. Packaging materials and systems for medical devices which are to be sterilized-part 3: paper for use in the manufacture of paper bags (specified in EN 868-4) and in the manufacture of pouches and reels (specified in EN 868-5)-requirements and test methods. Document EN 868-3; 1999. European Committee for Standardization website. http://www.cen.eu. Published 1999. Accessed January 19, 2015.Google Scholar
7. Sterilization—steam sterilizers—large sterilizers. Document EN 285; 1997. European Committee for Standardization website. http://www.cen.eu. Published 1997. Accessed January 19, 2015.Google Scholar
8. Dunkelberg, H, Schmelz, U. Determination of the efficacy of sterile barrier systems against microbial challenges during transport and storage. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2009;30:179–183.Google Scholar