人工流产器械不同清洗方法效果对比研究-《西部中医药》

文章信息/Info

Title:: Comparative Study on the Effects of Different Cleaning Methods for Artificial Abortion Instruments

Author(s):: ZHAO Qiong, GUO Shuhong, AN Haitao, GUO Hongyan, LIN Yuping, GUAN Yumei; Sterilized Supply Center of Jiuquan Municipal Hospital, Jiuquan 735000, China

摘要:: 目的：比较4种清洗方法清洗人工流产器械的清洗合格率。方法：将使用后的妇科器械随机分为4组，每组4 736件：A组用传统方法流动水下冲洗后浸泡2分钟改进为在纯水+多酶洗液浸泡15小时后，用牙刷刷洗后手工清洗漂洗、终末漂洗、高压水枪冲洗、高压气枪干燥；B组在A组基础上用牙刷刷洗后用新华Rapid-α-520快速式全自动清洗消毒器清洗；C组用QX2000超声清洗机清洗；D组在A组基础上用牙刷刷洗后用QX2000超声清洗机清洗。结果：妇科器械清洗合格率D组均高于其他3组。其中D组与A组相比，差异有统计学意义（P＜0.05）；D组与B组、C组相比，差异无统计学意义（P＞0.05），B组、C组与A组相比，差异无统计学意义（P＞0.05）。结论：第4种清洗方法较其他方法清洗干净，合格率高。

Abstract:: Objective: To compare the passing rate of four kinds of cleaning methods used to wash artificial abortion instruments. Methods: The used gynecological instruments could be divided into four groups, 4 736 pieces each group. Group A: traditional method of washing with running water and dipped in two minutes were improved: dipped in the water and multi-enzyme lotion for 15 hours, washing and rinsing by hand after washing out with the toothbrush, terminal rinse, flushing with high-pressure water jet, drying with high-pressure air rifle; on the foundation of group A, group B were washed with toothbrush, and cleaned with XinHua Rapid-α-520 rapid automatic sterilizer; group C were cleaned with QX2000 ultrasonic washer; group D were cleaned with QX2000 ultrasonic washer after washed with toothbrush. Results: Group D was higher than other three groups in passing rate of gynecological instruments cleaning, the difference showed statistical meaning when group D was compared with group A (P＜0.05); the difference demonstrated no statistical meaning when group D was compared with group B and C(P＞0.05), the difference presented no statistical meaning when group B and C was compared with group A(P＞0.05). Conclusion: The fourth method is cleaner than other methods with higher pass rate.