Avaliação microbiológica de duas formas de proteção das mesas de instrumentais cirúrgico sem cirurgias limpas

• Ano de defesa: 2012
• Autor(a) principal: Amaral, Aline Mesquita
• Tipo de documento: Dissertação
• Tipo de acesso: Acesso aberto
• Idioma: por
• Instituição de defesa: Universidade Federal de Uberlândia; BR; Programa de Pós-graduação em Ciências da Saúde; Ciências da Saúde; UFU
• Palavras-chave em Português: Infecção hospitalar; Contaminação ambiental; Desinfecção; Alcoóis; Iodo; Plásticos; Ciências médicas; Instrumentos e aparelhos cirúrgicos - Esterilização; Instrumentos e aparelhos cirúrgicos - Contaminação; Hospital infection; Environmental contamination; Disinfection; Alcohol; Iodine; Plastic; CNPQ::CIENCIAS DA SAUDE
• Link de acesso: https://repositorio.ufu.br/handle/123456789/12746; https://doi.org/10.14393/ufu.di.2012.359

All the objects present in the operating room, as well as the table of surgical instruments can be a source of contamination of the surgical site. Its fitting, following rules of asepsis, as well as the adequate sterilization of materials that will be exposed on the table, are key to reducing the rates of ISC. The use of fields of fabric covering the table surgical instrument reduces contamination of the material and consequently the ISC. But there is no work in the medical literature on the prior use of sterile plastic covering the table of surgical instruments in the field of sterile, routinely used in most surgical centers. The objective of this study was to analyze the use of field sterile plastic or friction of a solution of 70% alcohol and iodine to 1 %, used in tables of surgical instruments, as extrinsic factor to prevent contamination trans-operative surgical site. This was a randomized experiment, with collections of samples of the areas of tables of surgical instruments, before and after each procedure, with subsequent microbiological analysis for identification of microorganisms and its antimicrobial resistance. Results: In surgeries in which the sterilized plastic was used, the bacterial growth was 5.71 % before and 28.6 % after surgery while in disinfections with solution of 70% alcohol and iodine to 1 %, growth was 2.9 % before and 45.7 % after, without significant difference between the methods employed. To identify the microorganisms present in the tables of surgical instruments, we had prevalence of Micrococcus spp, and small percentage of Staphylococcus spp, they do not behave as multidrug-resistant front the classes of antimicrobial agents tested. As to the remaining factors evaluated, as surgery time, ASA classification of patient, use of antimicrobials, quantity of persons present in the operating room during the procedure, etc. , we noticed that the two groups were similar, it is not these determining factors of difference of contamination of tables of surgical instruments in two methods employed. Conclusions: the two methods have the power of similar protection, whereas the solution of 70% alcohol and iodine 1% does not generate solid waste.