UV-C LED对柔性鼻咽喉镜的消毒:微生物学、经济学、环境与立法评估
UV-C LED Disinfection of Flexible Rhinolaryngoscopes: Microbiological, Economic, Environmental, and Legislative Evaluation.
文献信息
| PMID | 42798308 |
|---|---|
| 原文 | 在 PubMed 查看原文 ↗ |
| 发表日期 | 2026 |
| 作者 | Camille Maeyaert |
| 作者单位 | Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences Ghent University Ghent Belgium. |
| 期刊 | Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology |
| SCI 分区 | Q2 |
| IF | 2.1 |
| 研究类型 | 临床研究 · 临床 |
| 所属专科 | 咽喉科 |
中文摘要
目的: 评估Ray-Two紫外-C(UV-C)发光二极管(LED)消毒舱在耳鼻咽喉科(ORL)实践中对柔性鼻咽喉镜再处理的微生物学效能,并将其经济与生态影响与使用Tristel Trio Wipes System(TTWS)的化学高水平消毒进行比较。
方法: 在一项于三级ORL中心开展的前瞻性研究中,对20条柔性鼻咽喉镜在常规后鼻镜检查和/或喉镜检查后立即评估细菌污染。从远端10-12 cm镜杆在再处理前后采集配对拭子样本:先以自来水手动预清洗,随后进行4分钟UV-C LED循环。样本在TSA-5%绵羊血琼脂上于35°C-37°C培养36小时,并计数菌落形成单位(CFU)。基于每年5000例操作,通过生命周期评估(ISO 14040/14044)计算每循环成本与碳足迹,并与TTWS进行比较。
结果: 再处理前CFU中位数(IQR;范围)为15(3-27;2至>200),UV-C后降至0(0-0;0-1)(p < 0.001;减少>99%;19/20样本无菌)。UV-C每循环成本为€0.56(TTWS为€8.32;节省93%),碳足迹为6.81 g CO2e(TTWS为115.8 g;减少94%)。年度节省:€38,800和548 kg CO2e。
结论: Ray-Two UV-C LED消毒舱在柔性鼻咽喉镜上实现近乎完全的细菌清除(19/20样本为100%;1/20样本残留1个CFU),与TTWS相比具有更优的成本效益和可持续性。这种无汞、即时护理方法在欧盟和美国各州关于含汞灯管的法规不断演变之际,支持更绿色的ORL实践,在不影响效能的情况下增强感染控制。
英文摘要
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the microbiological efficacy of the Ray-Two ultraviolet-C (UV-C) light-emitting diode (LED) chamber for reprocessing flexible rhinolaryngoscopes in otorhinolaryngology (ORL) practice and compare its economic and ecological impacts with chemical high-level disinfection using the Tristel Trio Wipes System (TTWS).
METHODS: In a prospective study at a tertiary ORL center, bacterial contamination was assessed on 20 flexible rhinolaryngoscopes immediately after routine posterior rhinoscopy and/or laryngoscopy. Paired swab samples were collected from the distal 10-12 cm shaft pre- and post-reprocessing: manual pre-cleaning with tap water followed by a 4-min UV-C LED cycle. Samples were cultured on TSA-5% sheep blood agar for 36 h at 35°C-37°C, with colony-forming units (CFUs) enumerated. Per-cycle costs and carbon footprints were calculated via life cycle assessment (ISO 14040/14044) and compared with TTWS, based on 5000 annual procedures.
RESULTS: Pre-reprocessing median CFUs (IQR; range) were 15 (3-27; 2 to > 200), reducing to 0 (0-0; 0-1) post-UV-C (p < 0.001; > 99% reduction; 19/20 samples sterile). UV-C per-cycle cost was €0.56 (vs. €8.32 for TTWS; 93% savings), with a carbon footprint of 6.81 g CO2e (vs. 115.8 g; 94% reduction). Annual savings: €38,800 and 548 kg CO2e.
CONCLUSION: The Ray-Two UV-C LED chamber achieves near-complete bacterial elimination (100% in 19/20 samples; 1 residual CFU in 1/20 samples) on flexible rhinolaryngoscopes, with superior cost-efficiency and sustainability versus TTWS. This mercury-free, point-of-care method supports greener ORL practice amid evolving EU and US state-level regulations on mercury-containing lamps, enhancing infection control without compromising efficacy.