2015
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajic.2015.07.010
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Sterility maintenance study: Dynamic evaluation of sterilized rigid containers and wrapped instrument trays to prevent bacterial ingress

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
5
0
1

Year Published

2016
2016
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5
1

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 6 publications
(6 citation statements)
references
References 14 publications
0
5
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…The study suggests the porous barrier may be an under-appreciated source of potential surgical infection (Waked et al 2007;Mobley and Jackson 2018). Rigid containers with porous filters may be more susceptible to bacterial ingress, especially over time (Shaffer et al 2015).…”
Section: The Problem With Modern Steam Sterilization: the Porous Barr...mentioning
confidence: 97%
“…The study suggests the porous barrier may be an under-appreciated source of potential surgical infection (Waked et al 2007;Mobley and Jackson 2018). Rigid containers with porous filters may be more susceptible to bacterial ingress, especially over time (Shaffer et al 2015).…”
Section: The Problem With Modern Steam Sterilization: the Porous Barr...mentioning
confidence: 97%
“…de umidade e temperatura, segurança da selagem e rotatividade do estoque armazenado, garantindo seu uso seguro e confiável no atendimento ao paciente (6)(7) .…”
Section: Artigounclassified
“…The current study by Rashidifard and colleagues [2] calls into question our ability to detect holes in the sterilization packaging currently used for wrapping instrument trays. There is very little information available on this subject, but a recent study did find that sterilized wrapped trays demonstrate considerable protection against contamination of airborne bacteria compared to rigid containers [3]. However, there appears to be difficulty detecting holes in sterile wrappings that are less than 2 mm in size.…”
Section: Where Are We Now?mentioning
confidence: 99%