Annals of Tropical Medicine and Public Health
Home About us Ahead Of Print Instructions Submission Subscribe Advertise Contact e-Alerts Editorial Board Login 
Users Online:868
  Print this page  Email this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size
 


 
Table of Contents   
ORIGINAL ARTICLE  
Year : 2017  |  Volume : 10  |  Issue : 4  |  Page : 910-913
Comparison of two disinfectant solutions deconex 53 plus 2% and glutaraldehyde (Cidex) 2% on reduction of medical equipment contamination in the operating room of urology ward


Department of Medical Science, Clinical Research Development Unit, Yasuj University of Medical Sciences, Yasuj, Iran

Click here for correspondence address and email

Date of Web Publication5-Oct-2017
 

   Abstract 


Introduction and Goal: Operating rooms are a great source of hospital infections caused by a variety of microorganisms. The use of different disinfectants is one of the most effective methods to reduce or eliminate the microbial load of the equipment and facilities that are in the hospital. This study aimed to compare two disinfectant solutions deconex 53 plus 2% and glutaraldehyde (Cidex) 2% on reduction of medical equipment contamination in the operating room of urology ward in Shahid Beheshti Hospital of Yasuj to microbes such as Staphylococcus aureus, Citrobacter, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Escherichia coli, and Klebsiella. Materials and Methods: Experimental study was conducted to investigate the effects of disinfectant solution with microbes including S. aureus, Citrobacter, P. aeruginosa, E. coli, and Klebsiella. Sixty-two metal and nonmetal tools used by qualified research (sterile conditions with disinfectants) were sampled. Collected data using SPSS version 22 and Chi-square and t-tests were analyzed. Results: In this study, contamination intervention with disinfectant solution deconex before the intervention, with E. coli, Pseudomonas and Citrobacter, S. aureus, and Klebsiella was 53%, 28%, 21%, 18% and 12% respectively. Moreover, the contamination of microbes in interventional suites with a solution of glutaraldehyde was 14%. Conclusion: Use of the disinfectant substance deconex 53 plus 2% and glutaraldehyde 2% for disinfection of equipment of urology operating room with respect to conditions and factors affecting disinfections such as concentration, reaction time, and learning the correct disinfection procedures showed that S. aureus, Citrobacter, P. aeruginosa, E. coli, and Klebsiella are completely removed.

Keywords: Contamination, deconex 53 plus, glutaraldehyde, medical equipment, operating room

How to cite this article:
Alamdari AK, Behrouzi M, Hosseini SM, Sadeghi H, Azizi A, Ghafarian Shirazi HR. Comparison of two disinfectant solutions deconex 53 plus 2% and glutaraldehyde (Cidex) 2% on reduction of medical equipment contamination in the operating room of urology ward. Ann Trop Med Public Health 2017;10:910-3

How to cite this URL:
Alamdari AK, Behrouzi M, Hosseini SM, Sadeghi H, Azizi A, Ghafarian Shirazi HR. Comparison of two disinfectant solutions deconex 53 plus 2% and glutaraldehyde (Cidex) 2% on reduction of medical equipment contamination in the operating room of urology ward. Ann Trop Med Public Health [serial online] 2017 [cited 2019 Sep 21];10:910-3. Available from: http://www.atmph.org/text.asp?2017/10/4/910/215862



   Introduction Top


Nosocomial infections have always been a major problem, and one of the high infection rates in operating rooms is lack of infection control methods.[1] The highest amount of bacteria in operating rooms is surgical and surgical team activities. According to statistics [2],[3] in each minute 10,000 bacterial produced in these conditions. So the surgical instruments should be disinfect to prevent transferring the diseases. About 5%–6% of hospitalized patients develop nosocomial infections that these infections prolong hospitalization in hospital time and cost too much to account for.[4],[5] Between the various causative factors, there is operating room that is potentially a large source of nosocomial infection with a high diversity of the organisms.[6] Microbial growth on many levels and equipment in operating rooms can be a good source of transmission of infection to patients undergoing surgery in hospitals.[7] Surgical site infections make up 25% of all nosocomial infections.[6] If infection control methods for equipment and work surfaces well run, pathogens can also be transmitted to the next patient.[8] The use of different disinfectants is one of the most effective methods to reduce or eliminate microbial load places, equipment, and facilities that are in the hospital. These solutions are chemical agents to reduce the microbial load of inanimate surfaces and reduce the number of pathogenic microorganisms.[4],[9],[10],[11] The controlling of these infections has been improved by increasing understanding of the pathogenic factors of hospital infections transmission and patterns of antimicrobial resistance and the use of disinfectant and antiseptic debugger.[12] Understanding and knowing the cause of infection and using proper disinfectants have an important role in the process.[13]

Statistics of 20%–25% of hospital infections is proper disinfection and sterilization can be effective in terms of cost control and reduction of mortality. Effective use of sterile equipment for patients, hospital costs, and hospital stay duration of stay in the hospital reduce secondary infection.[14] In Yasuj hospitals, two solutions glutaraldehyde 2% and deconex 53 plus 2% to urological operating room disinfection equipment were used, so researchers had done studies to compare the efficacy of disinfectant to reduce disinfection above in the urology operating room medical equipment in Yasuj Shahid Beheshti Hospital.


   Materials and Methods Top


This research is an experimental study of the effect of disinfectant solution deconex 53 plus 2% and glutaraldehyde 2% on reducing contamination in urology operating room medical equipment in Shahid Beheshti Hospital of Yasuj in 2015; the microbes such as Staphylococcus aureus, Citrobacter, Pseudomonas aeruginosa,  Escherichia More Details coli, and Klebsiella were evaluated. After Ethics Committee approval and permission of the department was obtained from Shahid Beheshti Hospital for this study, 62 samples by metal and nonmetal were used. Data gathered by the list of medical devices and laboratory specimens were checked. Intervention randomly every other day, he/she was carried by the two solutions. When using any material, intervention samples were collected by samples on blood agar medium and incubated for modified blood-azide. After cultivation, the above items with a disinfectant solution of glutaraldehyde 53 plus 2% or deconex 2%, according to the manufacturer's recommendation for 15 min at normal room conditions, were constant practice. Then, re-use of contaminated instruments sterilized medium on agar blood culture, and the results after 48 h in the checklist was recorded. Collected data using SPSS 20 developed by IMB cooperation in London using Chi-square and t-tests were analyzed.


   Results Top


By examining the causes of nosocomial infections during 2015 in the urology operating room in Shahid Beheshti Hospital of Yasuj, frequency of microorganisms causing infection is presented in [Table 1].
Table 1: The level of operating room equipment contamination to all kinds of germs before using disinfectants

Click here to view


In this study, contamination intervention with disinfectant solution deconex before the intervention, with E. coli, Pseudomonas and Citrobacter, S. aureus, and Klebsiella was 53%, 28%, 21%, 18% and 12% respectively. Moreover, the contamination of microbes in interventional suites with a solution of glutaraldehyde was 14%. For disinfection in accordance with the following tables, disinfection devices using Cidex disinfectants took deconex and detailed data were brought at the next table.

As can be seen in [Table 2], S. aureus infection rate in all medical equipment used in the operating room before disinfection differences was not significant.
Table 2: The frequency of contamination of medical devices before disinfection with disinfectant solution and Cidex contamination in the operating room urology

Click here to view


As can be seen in [Table 3], the bacterium Citrobacter infection in all medical devices used in the operating room before disinfection disinfectant solution did not have any significant contamination.
Table 3: Frequency distribution of Citrobacter bacterial contamination of medical devices before disinfection with disinfectant solution and glutaraldehyde contamination in the urology operating room

Click here to view


As can be seen in [Table 4], P. aeruginosa infection rate in all medical equipment used in the operating room before disinfection disinfectant solution was not significant.
Table 4: Frequency distribution of the bacteria Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection medical devices before disinfection with disinfectant solution and glutaraldehyde contamination in the urology operating room

Click here to view


As can be seen in [Table 5], contamination levels of E. coli in all medical devices used in the operating room before disinfection were not significant.
Table 5: Distribution of Escherichia coli bacterial contamination of medical devices before disinfection with disinfectant solution and glutaraldehyde contamination in the urology operating room

Click here to view


As can be seen in [Table 6], Klebsiella infection rate in all medical devices used in the operating room before disinfection differences was not significant. It is worth noting that all cultures were negative after disinfection difference was statistically significant compared to prior to disinfection.
Table 6: Distribution of Klebsiella infection medical devices before disinfection with disinfectant solution and glutaraldehyde contamination in the urology operating room

Click here to view



   Conclusion Top


The results showed that before disinfection, medical devices used were clear of infection, and after disinfection, no bacterial growth was observed, but a study was conducted by Mahmoodi et al. (2005) which aimed to compare the efficacy of two disinfecting solution halamide and deconex 53 plus levels of five operating room equipment in Hospital Gorgan that sampling surgical instruments and surfaces. The results showed that bacteria after disinfection E. coli 2.9% and Gram-negative bacilli 3.8%, Citrobacter 1%, Pseudomonas 2% grew. The study is inconsistent. In fact, 30.8% of the cultures were positive after disinfection.[6] In this study, The results showed any growth of bacteria after disinfection and infection detection tests were negative. The results were in agreement with the results presented in [8] which has been done laboratory of Flovejan Islamic Azad University.

The results are consistent with a study.[15] In this study, results showed that Gram-positive and Gram-negative microorganisms present contamination after disinfection with Cidex reached 100%. A study was conducted by Soltani et al. (1998) to determine and compare the effect Cidex disinfectants, hydrogen peroxide on the type and amount of contamination respiratory tubes of mechanical ventilation in intensive care units in teaching hospitals of Kermanshah on three groups of 20 each breathing tubes. Similar results were consistent with the present study.[15],[16],[17] In this study, results showed that before disinfection, contamination with microorganisms S. aureus, Citrobacter, Pseudomonas, E. coli was evident after negative results have been disinfected. A study was conducted by Jalalvand et al. (2012) to determine the microbial contamination of hospital operating room equipment in the city of Kermanshah. The microbial contamination of the equipment S. aureus-negative and Staphylococcus and Enterobacter bacteria, Candida albicans, P. aeruginosa, E. coli, and Citrobacter were the next category which is consistent with the study of pollution.[7] The results showed that before the microorganism Pseudomonas and E. coli d isinfection of contaminated instruments was clear and after disinfection results were negative. Based on the hypothesis that the effect of disinfection solution 2% glutaraldehyde solution, deconex 53 plus 2% of the bacteria, S. aureus, E. coli, Klebsiella, Citrobacter, and P. aeruginosa is different. For both studies, the number of colonies of bacteria after disinfection was zero. In general, the results of this study showed that the average number of pathogens. There is a significant difference before and after disinfection, and both disinfectant glutaraldehyde 2% and deconex 53 plus 2% on pathogenic microorganisms studied were effective, but glutaraldehyde disinfectant solution can be due to a lower price and same efficiency as the most suitable disinfectant and the most productive in removing bacteria from the surfaces of medical devices used in hospital infections.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.



 
   References Top

1.
Ghorbani F, Avazeh A, Eskandari F, Mohammadi F. The Study of Nosocomial Infection and Factors Associated with Ayatollah Mousavi Hospital, Zanjan, 2010. Ayatollah Mousavi Hospital, Zanjan University of Medical Sciences; 2010.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Nurian K, Aein F, Delaram M, Kazemian A. Evaluation methods employing the principles of infection control practice in Shahrekord University of Medical Sciences hospitals and compare them with the standards in 2006. Shahrekord Univ Med Sci J 2007;8:39-47.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Amanlou S, Farjah GH, Taghavi MR, Klarstaq H, Jahantygh HA, Saboury GR. Microbial contamination in hospital operating rooms Amiralmomenin Zabol city. J North Khorasan Univ Med Sci 2011;3:7-14.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Alaa S, Farsad F, Panahi P. Disinfectants and hospital infections. Journal of Food Drug 2011;12:124-9.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
Yldashkhan M, Bolourchi Fard F, Amiri Z. Comparison of the Effect of Povidone Iodine Solution and Decosept on Hand Contamination and Infection of Surgical Team Surgery. Nursing and Midwifery of Shahid Beheshti 2008;18:254-61.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
Mahmoodi G, Husseini A, Shariati A, Sheikh H. Comparison of disinfection solution and Deconex53plus halamyd. J Fac Nurs Midwifery Gorgan Univ 2005;2:34-41.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
Jalalvand F, Timuri B, Sohrabi N, Fakhri M, Shahsavary S, Jafari S. Microbial contamination in the city of Kermanshah in a hospital operating room equipment in 2011. Journal of Infectious Diseases and Tropical Medicine 2012;59:49-52.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
Arami S, Tavassoty Kheiri M, Bashar R, Nadali MA. Evaluation of the effect of three disinfectants on removing HBV contamination. Journal of Dentistry of Tehran University of Medical Sciences 2006;19:75-80.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
Ghaneiyan MT, Zandy H, Jamshidi S, Moameny H. The Evaluation of Efficacy of the Various Disinfectants on Pathogenic Bacteria Isolated from Different Levels of Shahid Sadughi Accidents Burns Hospital in City of Yazd; 2012.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.
Hosseini Shokouh SJ, Markazei Moghadam N, Hosseini Shokouh SM, Mollaei A, Fagheihei SH. Evaluation of quality control, sterilization units, health centers AJA in Tehran-1385. J Islamic Repub Iran Army Univ Med Sci 2010;13:79-84.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.
Ghorbanalizadegan M, Ranjbar R, Junaidi N. The prevalence of nosocomial infections bacterial multidrug resistance in patients admitted to the ICU at the Baghyatallah hospital in the 1385. J Med Sci 2005;16:167-72.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.
National Nosocomial Infections Surveillance System. National Nosocomial Infections Surveillance (NNIS) System Report, data summary from January 1992 through June 2004, issued October 2004. Am J Infect Control 2004;32:470-85.  Back to cited text no. 12
[PUBMED]    
13.
Thomas H, Gallagher MD, Hardly LM. Should we disclose harmful medical errors to patients? If so how? J Clin Outcomes Manag 2005;12:253-9.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.
Shabanin Hamedan M, Habibi R, Soltani Z, Shafikhani M, Hashemi Hefzabad F. Comparison of face-to-face and distance learning on KAP of washing and disinfection of surgical instruments among operating room staff of the teaching hospitals in Qazvin. Journal of Medical Infection of Azad University 2013;17:47-53.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.
Mohammadi Sichani M, Bahreini B, Hasan Zadeh A, Parsafar S. Effectiveness of 5% and 10% Deconex 53plus in Rapid Decontamination of Gutta-Percha Cones. Department of Microbiology, Faculty of Biology, Flaverjan Islamic Azad University, Iran; 2008.  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.
Soltani HA, Veisi Rayegani A, Zeraatkari KH, Soleimani B. Comparison between antiseptic properties Cidex, Savlone and hydrogen peroxide on the amount and type of respiratory infection and mechanical ventilation pipes. Res Med Sci 1998;5:320-2.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.
Dehghan F, Zolghadri N, Shafii A. Microbial Contamination of Medical Equipment. Sixth Congress of Clinical Microbiology and First International Congress of Clinical Microbiology; 2012.  Back to cited text no. 17
    

Top
Correspondence Address:
Mokhtar Behrouzi
Clinical Research Development Unit, Yasuj University of Medical Sciences, Yasuj
Iran
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/ATMPH.ATMPH_247_17

Rights and Permissions



 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1], [Table 2], [Table 3], [Table 4], [Table 5], [Table 6]



 

Top
 
  Search
 
    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *


    Abstract
   Introduction
    Materials and Me...
   Results
   Conclusion
    References
    Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed1277    
    Printed22    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded19    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal