Journals / Medicine Science / 2020 / Cilt: 9 - Sayı: 3

Can ultrasound probes and gels be the source for opportunistic bacterial infections?

Pages
585–588
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Disinfection and gel usage guidelines should be determined for ultrasound units both in our hospital and in our country.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The aim of this study was to investigate the contaminant microorganisms on the surface of probes used in noninvasive ultrasound examination and in the gels.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Furthermore, the samples were taken from gels when the gel was first opened, at the end of the day and 24 hours after opening.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Disinfection and gel usage guidelines should be determined for ultrasound units both in our hospital and in our country.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:76 samples
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Özet

The aim of this study was to investigate the contaminant microorganisms on the surface of probes used in noninvasive ultrasound examination and in the gels. Culture samples were obtained from the convex abdominal probe at the beginning of the day and after use on every five patients. Cultures were taken from linear breast probe at the beginning of the day and after use one very two patients. All samples were taken after wiping with a dry tissue paper until no visible gel remained on the probes. Furthermore, the samples were taken from gels when the gel was first opened, at the end of the day and 24 hours after opening. A total of 76 samples from 25 breast probes, 33 abdominal probes and 18 gels were included. Bacteria was detected in 20 (80%) of 25 linear probe samples. Coagulase negative staphylococci (CNS) were detected in 19 (76%), Burkholderia cepacia and Staphylococcus aureus in two (8%), Cupriavidus pauculus and Stenotrophomonas maltophilia in one (%4). Bacterial growth was detected in 23 of 33 (69.7%) abdominal probes. aureus and S.maltophilia were isolated in 2 samples, most of which were CNS (n:20; 60.6%). The bacterial growth rate of all probes was 74.13% (43/58). Bacteria was detected in 2 of 18 gel samples (16.66%), two of which were CNS and one of them was S.maltophilia. Although more skin flora bacteria were detected in noninvasive probes and gels, a small number of pathogenic bacteria were also found in our study. Proper disinfection of the noninvasive probes and proper use of gels is therefore necessary. We believe that wiping with nonsterile dry tissue paper after each procedure is insufficient for disinfection of the probe surface. Disinfection and gel usage guidelines should be determined for ultrasound units both in our hospital and in our country.

🔖

Cite This Article

GENÇ, Ö., UMAY, S. (2020). Can ultrasound probes and gels be the source for opportunistic bacterial infections?. Medicine Science, Cilt: 9 - Sayı: 3, 585–588. https://ajindex.com/articles/277090

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (14)

  1. Kramer A, Schwebke I, Kampf G. How long do nosocomial pathogens persist on in animate surfaces? A systematic review. BMC Infect Dis. 2006;6:130
  2. Spencer P, Spencer RC. Ultrasound scanning of post-operative wounds-the risk of cross-infection. Clin Radiol. 1988;39:245-46
  3. Koibuchi H, Hayashi S, Kotani K, et al. Comparison of methods for evaluating bacterial contamination of ultrasound probes. J Med Ultrasonics. 2009;36:187-92
  4. Weist K, Wendt C, Petersen LR, et al. An outbreak of pyodermas among neonates caused by ultrasound gel contaminated with methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2000;21:761-76
  5. Sartoretti T, Sartoretti E, Bucher C, et al. Bacterial contamination of ultrasound probes in different radiological institutions before and after specific hygiene training: do we have a general hygienical problem? Eur Radiol. 2017;27:4181-7
  6. Hayashi S, Koibuchi H, Taniguchi N, et al. Evaluation of procedures for decontaminating ultrasound probes. J Med Ultrason. 2012;39:11-4
  7. Mattar EH, Hammad LF, Ahmad S, et al. An investigation of the bacterial contamination of ultrasound equipment’s at a University Hospital in Saudi Arabia. J Clin Diag Res. 2010;:2685-90
  8. Mullaney PJ, Munthali P, Vlachou P, et al. How clean is your probe? Microbiological assessment of ultrasound transducers in routine clinical use, and cost-effective ways to reduce contamination. Clin Radiol. 2007;62:694-8
  9. Sykes A, Appleby M, Perry J, et al. An investigation of the microbial contamination of ultrasound equipment. Br J Infect Contr. 2006;7:16-20
  10. Westerway SC, Basseal JM, Brockway A, et al. Potential infection control risks associated with ultrasound equipment – a bacterial perspective. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2017;43:421-6
  11. Skowronek P, Wojciechowski A, Leszczyński P, et al. Can diagnostic ultrasound scanners be a potential vector of opportunistic bacterial infection? Med Ultrason. 2016;18:326-31
  12. Schabrun S, Chipchase L, Rickard H. Are therapeutic ultrasound units a potential vector for nosocomial infection? Physiother Res Int. 2006;11(2):61- 71
  13. Ejtehadi F, Ejtehadi F, Teb JC, et al. A safe and practical decontamination method to reduce the risk of bacterial colonization of ultrasound transducers. J Clin Ultrasound. 2014;42:395-8
  14. Gaillot O, Maruéjouls C, Abachin E, et al. Nosocomial outbreak of Klebsiella pneumoniae producing SHV-5 extended-spectrum b-lactamase, originating from a contaminated ultrasonograph