Comparative Analysis of Sterilization Methods for Basic Surgical Instruments: A Retrospective Study
- 1. Assistant Professor, Department of Surgery, Nalanda Medical College and Hospital, Patna
- 2. Assistant Professor, Department of Pharmacology, Patna Medical College and Hospital, Patna
- 3. Professor, Department of Surgery, Nalanda Medical College and Hospital, Patna
Description
Background: Sterilisation of surgical instruments is essential for minimising the risk of infection during surgery and keeping patients safe. This research evaluates the efficacy of three approaches to sterilising basic surgical instruments such as autoclaving, chemical sterilisation, and low-temperature sterilisation. Methods: The study used a retrospective design with 300 hospitals as subjects. We looked at how well it worked, how much it cost, and how safe it was. Institutional and electronic health records were mined for data, and analyses were run. Results: Compared to chemical sterilisation (₹1514) and low-temperature sterilisation (₹1810), autoclaving was the most cost-effective approach, with an average cost per cycle of ₹1040. The most reported adverse events (12) and highest grade for environmental effects (4.1) were associated with chemical sterilisation. Seven adverse events were observed during autoclaving, earning a score of 3.2 for ecological Impact, whereas others were reported with low-temperature sterilisation, achieving a score of 3.7. Conclusion: The results provide recommendations on how healthcare facilities allocate their resources to ensure patient safety. Potential data incompletion and variability in healthcare settings in the real world are limitations. This research lays the foundation for further investigations into sterilisation technologies, sustainability, and long-term patient outcomes.
Abstract (English)
Background: Sterilisation of surgical instruments is essential for minimising the risk of infection during surgery and keeping patients safe. This research evaluates the efficacy of three approaches to sterilising basic surgical instruments such as autoclaving, chemical sterilisation, and low-temperature sterilisation. Methods: The study used a retrospective design with 300 hospitals as subjects. We looked at how well it worked, how much it cost, and how safe it was. Institutional and electronic health records were mined for data, and analyses were run. Results: Compared to chemical sterilisation (₹1514) and low-temperature sterilisation (₹1810), autoclaving was the most cost-effective approach, with an average cost per cycle of ₹1040. The most reported adverse events (12) and highest grade for environmental effects (4.1) were associated with chemical sterilisation. Seven adverse events were observed during autoclaving, earning a score of 3.2 for ecological Impact, whereas others were reported with low-temperature sterilisation, achieving a score of 3.7. Conclusion: The results provide recommendations on how healthcare facilities allocate their resources to ensure patient safety. Potential data incompletion and variability in healthcare settings in the real world are limitations. This research lays the foundation for further investigations into sterilisation technologies, sustainability, and long-term patient outcomes.
Files
IJPCR,Vol15,Issue12,Article75.pdf
Files
(1.7 MB)
| Name | Size | Download all |
|---|---|---|
|
md5:a7093ba7a48dc2e8f1815afc2f2e0936
|
1.7 MB | Preview Download |
Additional details
Dates
- Accepted
-
2023-11-30
Software
- Repository URL
- https://impactfactor.org/PDF/IJPCR/15/IJPCR,Vol15,Issue12,Article75.pdf
- Development Status
- Active
References
- 1. H. Hashemi Beni, Z. Shafiei, and A. Ghadami, A comparative study of the manual, automated, and ultrasonic surgical-instrument cleaning methods, Journal of Iranian Medical Council, 2022. 2. M. S. Ordoñez-Díaz, F. N. Díaz-Piraquive, and Y. de Jesús Muriel-Perea, "Benchmarking in Colombian sterilization departments," Communications in Computer and Information Science, 2021; 212–224, 2021. 3. F. F. Amaliya and D. I. Burhany, Comparative analysis of the effectiveness and efficiency of environmental cost control in realizing the ecoefficiency of mining companies, Jurnal Riset Akuntansi, 2022; 14(1): 116–139. 4. A. Valls-Esteve et al., A state-of-the-art guide about the effects of sterilization processes on 3D-printed materials for surgical planning and Medical Applications: A Comparative Study, International Journal of Bioprinting, 2023; 9(5): 756. 5. X. Shen, Y. Qin, J. Zuo, T. Liu, and J. Xiao, Comparison of the sterilization efficiency of 3 disinfectants for dropped Anterior Cruciate Ligament Grafts: A systematic review and meta-analysis, Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine, 2021; 9(5): 232596712110028, 2021. 6. B. Djemaa, Comparative study of bacteria sterilization by cold plasma produced by DC generator with positive and negative polarity using atmospheric pressure, Przegląd Elektrotechniczny, 2020; 1(12): 60–64. 7. S. R. Chivukula, S. Lammers, and J. Wagner, Correction to: Assessing organic material on single-use vessel sealing devices: A Comparative Study of reprocessed and New Liga Sure TM Devices, Surgical Endoscopy, 2021; 36(3): 2218–2219. 8. Q. Xing et al., A comparative study of patients' subjective feelings toward total hip arthroplasty with patient‐specific instruments and traditional total hip arthroplasty, Orthopaedic Surgery, 2020; 12(1): 269–276. 9. H. J. Friedericy, C. W. van Egmond, J. G. Vogtländer, A. C. van der Eijk, and F. W. Jansen, Reducing the environmental impact of sterilization packaging for surgical instruments in the Operating Room: A Comparative Life Cycle Assessment of disposable versus Reusable Systems, Sustainability, 2021; 14(1): 430. 10. W. A. Rutala, M. F. Gergen, E. E. SickbertBennett, and D. J. Weber, Comparative evaluation of the microbicidal activity of lowtemperature sterilization technologies to steam sterilization, Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology, 2020; 41(4): 391–39. 11. L. M. Donahue, S. Hilton, S. G. Bell, B. C. Williams, and G. A. Keoleian, A comparative carbon footprint analysis of disposable and reusable vaginal specula, American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 2020; 223:2. 12. L. Dreikausen et al., Analysis of microbial contamination during use and reprocessing of surgical instruments and sterile packaging systems, PLOS ONE, 2023; 18(1). 13. M. Morais, P. Coimbra, and M. E. Pina, Comparative analysis of morphological and release profiles in ocular implants of acetazolamide prepared by electrospinning, Pharmaceutics, 2021; 13(2): 260. 14. C. Rizan, R. Lillywhite, M. Reed, and M. F. Bhutta, Minimising carbon and financial costs of steam sterilisation and packaging of reusable surgical instruments, British Journal of Surgery, 2021; 109(2): 200–210. 15. J. Wiseman, T. Rawther, M. Langbart, M. Kernohan, and Q. Ngo, Sterilization of bedside 3D-printed devices for use in the operating room, Annals of 3D Printed Medicine, 2022; 5:100045.