Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 2 de 2
Filter
Add filters








Type of study
Year range
1.
Chinese Journal of Infection Control ; (4): 253-256, 2019.
Article in Chinese | WPRIM | ID: wpr-744341

ABSTRACT

Objective To evaluate the cleaning quality of different cleaning methods for laparoscopic instruments, ensure the cleaning quality of instruments.Methods The used laparoscopic instruments were classified into two categories: non-lumen instruments and lumen instruments. Three cleaning methods, traditional manual cleaning (A), manual cleaning + ultrasonic cleaning (B), manual cleaning + automatic cleaning disinfector (C), were adopted respectively for treating instruments. Cleaning quality of instruments were detected with ATP bioluminescence assay.Results The qualified rates of laparoscopic non-lumen instruments cleaned by methods A, B, and C were 78.75%, 95.71%, and 96.00% respectively, difference was significant (χ2=16.453, P<0.001);qualified rate of methods B and C for cleaning non-lumen instruments was higher than that of method A (P<0.016), there was no significant difference between methods B and C (P>0.016). Qualified rates of laparoscopic lumen instruments cleaned by methods A, B, and C were 76.47%, 98.75%, and 91.55% respectively, difference was significant (χ2=21.087, P<0.001); qualified rates of methods B and C for cleaning lumen instruments were both higher than that of method A (P<0.016), there was no significant difference between methods B and C (P>0.016). Conclusion Effect of manual cleaning + ultrasonic cleaning and manual cleaning + automatic cleaning disinfector on used laparoscopic instruments are both better than that of traditional manual cleaning method, can effectively guarantee the cleaning quality of instruments and help to ensure the operation safety of patients.

2.
Biomedical and Environmental Sciences ; (12): 476-491, 2004.
Article in English | WPRIM | ID: wpr-329612

ABSTRACT

Intrauterine infection is an important cause of some birth defects worldwide. The most common pathogens include rubella virus, cytomegaloviurs, ureaplasma urealyticum, toxoplasma, etc. General information about these pathogens in epidemiology, consequence of birth defects, and the possible mechanisms in the progress of birth defects, and the interventions to prevent or treat these pathogens' infections are described. The infections caused by rubella virus, cytomegaloviurs, ureaplasma urealyticum, toxoplasma, etc. are common, yet they are proved to be fatal during the pregnant period, especially during the first trimester. These infections may cause sterility, abortion, stillbirth, low birth weight, and affect multiple organs that may induce loss of hearing and vision, even fetal deformity and the long-term effects. These pathogens' infections may influence the microenvironment of placenta, including levels of enzymes and cytokines, and affect chondriosome that may induce the progress of birth defect. Early diagnosis of infections during pregnancy should be strengthened. There are still many things to be settled, such as the molecular mechanisms of birth defects, the effective vaccines to certain pathogens. Birth defect researches in terms of etiology and the development of applicable and sensitive pathogen detection technology and methods are imperative.


Subject(s)
Animals , Female , Humans , Infant, Newborn , Pregnancy , Congenital Abnormalities , Placenta Diseases , Pregnancy Complications, Infectious , Pregnancy Outcome , Pregnancy Trimester, First , Rubella , Toxoplasma , Virulence , Ureaplasma urealyticum , Virulence
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL