Search

Objectives: To identify bacterial contamination rates of laryngoscope blades and handles stored in emergency crash carts by hospital and area according to the frequency of intubation attempts., Methods: One hundred forty-eight handles and 71 blades deemed ready for patient use from two tertiary hospitals were sampled with sterile swabs using a standardized rolling technique. Samples were considered negative (not contaminated) if no colonies were present on the blood agar plate after an 18-hour incubation period. Samples were stratified by hospital and according to the frequency of intubation attempts (10 attempts per year) using the χ2-test and Fisher exact test., Results: One or more species of bacteria were isolated from 4 (5.6%) handle tops, 20 (28.2%) handles with knurled surfaces, and 27 (18.2%) blades. No significant differences were found in microbial contamination levels on the handle tops and blades between the two hospitals and two areas according to the frequency of intubation attempts. However, significant differences were found between the two hospitals and two areas in the level of microbial contamination on the handles with knurled surfaces (p<0.05)., Conclusions: Protocols and policies must be reviewed to standardize procedures to clean and disinfect laryngoscope blades and handles; handles should be re-designed to eliminate points of contact with the blade; and single-use, one-piece laryngoscopes should be introduced.

Background: Anesthesiologists may contribute to postoperative infections by means of the transmission of blood and pathogens to the patient and the environment in the operating room (OR). Our primary aims were to determine whether contamination of the IV hub, the anesthesia work area, and the patient could be reduced after induction of anesthesia by removing the risk associated with contaminants on the laryngoscope handle and blade. Therefore, we conducted a study in a simulated OR where some of the participants sheathed the laryngoscope handle and blade in a glove immediately after it was used to perform an endotracheal intubation., Methods: Forty-five anesthesiology residents (postgraduate year 2-4) were enrolled in a study consisting of identical simulation sessions. On entry to the simulated OR, the residents were asked to perform an anesthetic, including induction and endotracheal intubation timed to approximately 6 minutes. Of the 45 simulation sessions, 15 were with a control group conducted with the intubating resident wearing single gloves, 15 with the intubating resident using double gloves with the outer pair removed and discarded after verified intubation, and 15 wearing double gloves and sheathing the laryngoscope in one of the outer gloves after intubation. Before the start of the scenario, the lips and inside of the mouth of the mannequin were coated with a fluorescent marking gel. After each of the 45 simulations, an observer examined the OR using an ultraviolet light to determine the presence of fluorescence on 25 sites: 7 on the patient and 18 in the anesthesia environment., Results: Of the 7 sites on the patient, ultraviolet light detected contamination on an average of 5.7 (95% confidence interval, 4.4-7.2) sites under the single-glove condition, 2.1 (1.5-3.1) sites with double gloves, and 0.4 (0.2-1.0) sites with double gloves with sheathing. All 3 conditions were significantly different from one another at P < 0.001. Of the 18 environmental sites, ultraviolet light detected fluorescence on an average of 13.2 (95% confidence interval, 11.3-15.6) sites under the single-glove condition, 3.5 (2.6-4.7) with double gloves, and 0.5 (0.2-1.0) with double gloves with sheathing. Again, all 3 conditions were significantly different from one another at P < 0.001., Conclusions: The results of this study suggest that when an anesthesiologist in a simulated OR sheaths the laryngoscope immediately after endotracheal intubation, contamination of the IV hub, patient, and intraoperative environment is significantly reduced.

Background and Objectives: Hospital-acquired infections (HAIs) are largely preventable through risk analysis and modification of practice. Anaesthetic practice plays a limited role in the prevention of HAIs, although laryngoscope use and decontamination is an area of concern. We aimed to assess the level of microbial contamination of re-usable laryngoscope blades at a public hospital in South Africa., Setting: The theatre complex of a secondary-level public hospital in Johannesburg., Methods: Blades from two different theatres were sampled twice daily, using a standardised technique, over a 2-week period. Samples were quantitatively assessed for microbial contamination, and stratified by area on blade, theatre and time using Fisher's exact test., Results: A contamination rate of 57.3% (63/110) was found, with high-level contamination accounting for 22.2% of these. Common commensals were the most frequently isolated micro-organisms (79.1%), but important hospital pathogens such as Enterobacter species and Acinetobacter baumannii were isolated from blades with high-level contamination. No significant difference in the level of microbial contamination by area on blade, theatre or time was found (p<0.05)., Conclusions: A combination of sub-optimal decontamination and improper handling of laryngoscopes after decontamination results in significant microbial contamination of re-usable laryngoscope blades. There is an urgent need to review protocols and policies surrounding the use of these blades.

Current procedures for cleaning anesthesia airway equipment as assessed by the presence of visible and occult blood on laryngoscope blades and handles as labeled "ready for patient use" has been reported to be ineffective. Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and the hepatitis B virus (HBV) are 2 commonly seen pathogens that frequently are found in the healthcare setting. It has been shown that HBV can survive on a dry surface for at least 7 days and both HIV and HBV are transmitted via blood. The potential for cross-contamination from airway equipment to patient has been shown in several studies. To prevent further potential infections, it should be ascertained why anesthesia providers are not all using disposable laryngoscope blades. The purpose of this literature review is to determine the use and infection control practices of disposable laryngoscope blades. Their frequency of use, their evaluation of ease of use, and any complications encountered when using the disposable blade are reviewed, as well as the perceptions of anesthesia providers regarding disposable laryngoscope blades.

Background: Laryngoscope blades are often cleaned between cases according to well-defined protocols. However, despite evidence that laryngoscope handles could be a source of nosocomial infection, neither our institution nor the American Society of Anesthesiologists has any specific guidelines for handle disinfection. We hypothesized that laryngoscope handles may be sufficiently contaminated with bacteria and viruses to justify the implementation of new handle-cleaning protocols., Methods: Sixty laryngoscope handles from the adult operating rooms were sampled with premoistened sterile swabs. Collection was performed between cases, in operating rooms hosting a broad variety of subspecialty procedures, after the room and equipment had been thoroughly cleaned for the subsequent case. Samples from 40 handles were sent for aerobic bacterial culture, and antimicrobial susceptibility testing was performed for significant isolates. Samples from 20 handles were examined for viral contamination using a polymerase chain reaction assay that detects 17 respiratory viruses., Results: Of the 40 samples sent for culture, 30 (75%) were positive for bacterial contamination. Of these positive cultures, 25 (62.5%) yielded coagulase-negative staphylococci, seven (17.5%) Bacillusspp. not anthracis, three (7.5%) alpha-hemolytic Streptococcusspp., and one each (2.5%) of Enterococcusspp., Staphylococcus aureus(S. aureus), and Corynebacteriumspp. No vancomycin-resistant enterococci, methicillin-resistant S. aureus, or Gram-negative rods were detected. All viral tests were negative., Conclusion: We found a high incidence of bacterial contamination of laryngoscope handles despite low-level disinfection. However, no vancomycin-resistant enterococci, methicillin-resistant S. aureus, Gram-negative rods, or respiratory viruses were detected. Our results support adoption of guidelines that include, at a minimum, mandatory low-level disinfection of laryngoscope handles after each patient use.

Neither a consensus statement nor a formal set of step-by-step guidelines for reprocessing rigid laryngoscopes have been published or endorsed by professional organizations. Several published guidelines, standards, and clinical reports were reviewed to evaluate the risk of nosocomial infection associated with the use of rigid laryngoscopes, to determine their minimum reprocessing requirements. This review found that the recommendations of some guidelines and standards for reprocessing rigid laryngoscopes are incomplete, inadequate, and inconsistent with one another, and that current practices for reprocessing rigid laryngoscopes are reported to be inadequate and lack standardization. It is recommended that a consensus statement be developed that standardizes the reprocessing of rigid laryngoscopes and requires cleaning followed by high-level disinfection (or sterilization) and drying of the rigid laryngoscope's blade and handle to prevent nosocomial infection, regardless of whether a protective barrier or sheath is used during the procedure.