Laryngoscope decontamination techniques: A survey

Chawla, Rajiv; Gupta, Akhilesh; Gupta, Anshu; Kumar, Manoj

doi:10.4103/0970-9185.175706

Cited by 5 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, there was marked variability in decontamination methods. [14] Our study results also corroborate the results of these Indian studies. Awareness regarding the need for cleaning and disinfection of laryngoscopes was high (94% for blade; 89% for handle).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

Disinfection of laryngoscopes: A survey of practice

Chaskar¹,

Dave²,

Dias³

et al. 2017

Indian J Anaesth

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

Disinfection of laryngoscopes: A survey of practice

Chaskar¹,

Dave²,

Dias³

et al. 2017

Indian J Anaesth

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Regulatory bodies, such as the Joint Commission (USA), emphasized the importance of standardizing the reprocessing and storage of laryngoscope blades and handles to reduce the risk of infection. Guidelines for the decontamination of laryngoscopes exist in several countries [ 17 ]. However, there are no specific guidelines related to laryngoscopes in Spain.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Disinfection of Reusable Laryngoscopes: A Survey about the Clinical Practice in Spain

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Airway device-associated infections resulting from the cross-contamination of reusable laryngoscopes are one of the main causes of healthcare-associated infections. Laryngoscope blades are highly contaminated with various pathogens, including Gram-negative bacilli, which can cause prolonged hospitalization, high morbidity and mortality risks, the development of antibiotic-resistant microorganisms, and significant costs. Despite the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the American Society of Anesthesiologists’ recommendations, this national survey of 248 Spanish anesthesiologists showed that there is great variability in the processing of reusable laryngoscopes in Spain. Nearly a third of the respondents did not have an institutional disinfection protocol, and 45% of them did not know the disinfection procedure used. Good practices for the prevention and control of cross-contamination can be ensured through compliance with evidence-based guidelines, education of healthcare providers, and audits of clinical practices.

show abstract

“…Only 22% used a chemical disinfectant. [ 4 ] Thus, there are no fixed protocols for disinfection and neither is the adequacy of disinfection confirmed. Although glutaraldehyde has been recommended for HLD in previous studies, it requires a contact time of 20 min.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In India, there are no specific guidelines for disinfection of laryngoscopes. [ 1 4 ] Ortho-phthalaldehyde (OPA) is a new CDC approved HLD agent with a shorter contact time. Hence, we decided to conduct a prospective study comparing efficacy and cost-effectiveness of two CDC approved HLD agents 2% glutaraldehyde and 0.55% OPA for disinfection of laryngoscope blades.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of efficacy and cost-effectiveness of 0.55% ortho-phthalaldehyde and 2% glutaraldehyde for disinfection of laryngoscopes: A prospective pilot study

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and Aims:The laryngoscope is a potential source of cross-infection as it involves contact with the mucous membrane, saliva and occasionally blood. This study compared efficacy and cost-effectiveness of two Centre for Disease Control approved agents for disinfection of laryngoscope blades.Methods:One hundred and sixty patients requiring laryngoscopy and intubation for general anaesthesia were randomly allocated into two groups. After tracheal intubation, used laryngoscope blades were cleaned with tap water. The blades were then immersed in either 2% w/v glutaraldehyde for a contact time of 20 min or 0.55% w/v ortho-phthalaldehyde (OPA) for 10 min. The handles were wiped with 0.5% w/v chlorhexidine wipes. Samples were collected using sterile cotton swabs from the tip, flange and light bulb area of the laryngoscope blade and one from the handle. They were cultured aerobically on blood and McConkey agar.Results:In 2% glutaraldehyde group, of 240 samples sent from the blades, 2 (0.8%) showed the growth of methicillin-resistant coagulase-negative staphylococci (MRCONS) and Enterobacter. In OPA group, of 240 samples, 2 (0.8%) showed growth of MRCONS. Thus, 2% glutaraldehyde and 0.55% OPA were comparable in terms of efficacy of disinfection. Growth was seen on 4 out of 160 handles.Conclusions:We suggest OPA for high-level disinfection of laryngoscope blades as it is equally efficacious as compared to glutaraldehyde, with a shorter contact time and available as a ready to use formulation.

show abstract

Laryngoscope decontamination techniques: A survey

Cited by 5 publications

References 17 publications

Disinfection of laryngoscopes: A survey of practice

Disinfection of laryngoscopes: A survey of practice

Disinfection of Reusable Laryngoscopes: A Survey about the Clinical Practice in Spain

Comparison of efficacy and cost-effectiveness of 0.55% ortho-phthalaldehyde and 2% glutaraldehyde for disinfection of laryngoscopes: A prospective pilot study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About