Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T12:43:15.395Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Test to Determine Sterile Integrity of Wrapped Medical Products at a Probability of Recontamination of 1: 1,000,000

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 June 2016

Hartmut Dunkelberg  and
Susanne Rohmann
Hartmut Dunkelberg*
Affiliation:
Medical Institute of General Hygiene and Environmental Health, University of Goettingen, Goettingen, Germany
Susanne Rohmann
Affiliation:
Medical Institute of General Hygiene and Environmental Health, University of Goettingen, Goettingen, Germany
*
Medical Institute of General Hygiene and Environmental Health, University of Goettingen, Windausweg 2, D-37073 Goettingen, Germany ([email protected])
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective.

We developed a microbiological test to detect the penetration of airborne microorganisms through the packaging of medical products after sterilization, to meet the requirements of European standard EN 556. We applied this test method to transparent pouches.

Design.

The microbial-barrier properties of the transparent pouches were determined using the microbial challenge test, in which the package was placed inside an exposure chamber and exposed to a defined aerosol of Saccharomyces cerevisiae. The atmospheric pressure in the chamber was periodically reduced by 0-75 millibars, to simulate weather-dependent pressure changes. Thermoresistant petri dishes filled with nutrient agar were integrated into the transparent pouches before sterilization. The packages were incubated after exposure. They were then opened and examined for colony growth.

Results.

The number of recontaminated packages per test group (n = 50) depended on the microbial bioload (defined as the number of colony-forming units per plate) to which the packages were exposed and on the size and number of decreases in atmospheric pressure. Results of multiple regression analysis showed a significant increase in the number of recontaminated packages in correlation with the product of the values for microbial bioload and the size and number of decreases in atmospheric pressure. When we analyzed the probability of recontamination of wrapped medical devices after 2 reductions in atmospheric pressure (30 millibars each) and with a surface microbial load of 10 colony-forming units per 64 cm2, we estimated that the frequency of recontamination was 1: 100,000.

Conclusion.

Multiple regression analysis showed that the proposed microbial challenge test is suitable to determine the probability of package recontamination at the 1: 1,000,000 level.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 27 , Issue 4 , April 2006 , pp. 367 - 371
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America 2006

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.Kelsey, JC. The myth of surgical sterility. Lancet 1972; 2:1301–1303.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2.Klapes, NA, Greene, VW, Langholz, AC, Hustinger, C. Effect of long-term storage on sterile status of devices on surgical packs. Infect Control 1987; 8:289–293.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3.Butt, WE, Bradley, DV, Mayhew, RB, Schwartz, RS. Evaluation of the shelf life of sterile instrument packs. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1991; 72:650–654.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4.European Committee for Standardization. Standard EN 556-1: requirements for medical devices to be designated “STERILE”. Part 1. Requirements for terminally sterilized medical devices. Brussels, Belgium: European Committee for Standardization; 2001.Google Scholar
5.Webster, J, Lloyd, W, Ho, P, Burridge, C, George, N. Rethinking sterilization practices: evidence for event-related outdating. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2003; 24:622–624.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6.Dunkelberg, H, Wedekind, S. Preliminary results for a new final package test to assess the quality of sterile package systems. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2004; 25:26–29.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7.European Committee for Standardization. Standard EN 868-1: Packaging materials and systems for medical devices which are to be sterilized. Part 1. General requirements and test methods. Brussels, Belgium: European Committee for Standardization; 1997.Google Scholar
8.Schwartz, R, Davis, R. Safe storage times for sterile dental packs. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Path 1990; 70:297–300.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9.Bhumisirikul, W, Bhumisirikul, P, Pongchairerks, P. Longterm storage of small surgical instruments in autoclaved packages. Asian J Surg 2003; 26:26:202–204.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10.Widmer, AF, Houston, A, Bollinger, E, Wenzel, RP. A new standard for sterility testing for autoclaved surgical trays. J Hosp Infect 1992; 21:253–260.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed