专用端口清洁装置在腹腔镜手术中的作用。

IF 2.4 2区 医学 Q2 SURGERY
Shinnosuke Nagano, Shota Fujii, Kota Momose, Kotaro Yamashita, Takuro Saito, Koji Tanaka, Kazuyoshi Yamamoto, Tomoki Makino, Tsuyoshi Takahashi, Yukinori Kurokawa, Hidetoshi Eguchi, Yuichiro Doki, Kiyokazu Nakajima
{"title":"专用端口清洁装置在腹腔镜手术中的作用。","authors":"Shinnosuke Nagano, Shota Fujii, Kota Momose, Kotaro Yamashita, Takuro Saito, Koji Tanaka, Kazuyoshi Yamamoto, Tomoki Makino, Tsuyoshi Takahashi, Yukinori Kurokawa, Hidetoshi Eguchi, Yuichiro Doki, Kiyokazu Nakajima","doi":"10.1007/s00464-024-11366-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Various techniques have been used to prevent smudge on a laparoscope when inserting through trocars; however, there has been no standardized method. The purpose of this study was to compare the performance of different cleaning techniques with or without using dedicated devices, and to evaluate the features of cleaning devices.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The smudge was created in the standard 12-mm and 5-mm ports using pseudo-blood, and port cleaning was attempted using 5 different methods: (1) a surgical gauze + surgical forceps, (2) a surgical gauze + laparoscopic forceps, (3) a small laparoscopic gauze + laparoscopic forceps, (4) a cylinder-type cleaner (Endo Wiper; Osaki Medical), and (5) a swab-type cleaner (Port Cleaner; Hakuzo Medical). The \"port cleaning rate\" was calculated by measuring the absorbance of remained pseudo-blood after single cleaning procedure using UV spectrophotometry. In addition, the port cleaning rate was compared between two dedicated devices after multiple (5 times) cleaning procedures.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The two dedicated devices had a statistically higher cleaning rate for 12-mm port than the methods using surgical gauze (p < 0.05). Regarding the 5-mm port, a swab-type cleaner showed the highest cleaning rate than the gauze method and a cylinder-type cleaner (p < 0.05). After multiple cleaning procedures for 12-mm port, cleaning rate of a swab-type cleaner decreased by an average of 5.4% (p = 0.044), but cleaning rate did not decrease for a cylinder-type cleaner. Regarding the 5-mm port, cleaning rate statistically decreased for both two dedicated devices (p < 0.01).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Higher port cleaning rates were observed in techniques using dedicated devices. A swab-type cleaner had better port cleaning rate in single use, especially for the 5-mm port. A cylinder-type cleaner showed higher durability in cleaning 12-mm port. The features of these dedicated devices should be well understood, and cleaning methods should be selected according to the environment and surgical techniques.</p>","PeriodicalId":22174,"journal":{"name":"Surgical Endoscopy And Other Interventional Techniques","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Role of dedicated port cleaning devices in laparoscopic surgery.\",\"authors\":\"Shinnosuke Nagano, Shota Fujii, Kota Momose, Kotaro Yamashita, Takuro Saito, Koji Tanaka, Kazuyoshi Yamamoto, Tomoki Makino, Tsuyoshi Takahashi, Yukinori Kurokawa, Hidetoshi Eguchi, Yuichiro Doki, Kiyokazu Nakajima\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s00464-024-11366-w\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Various techniques have been used to prevent smudge on a laparoscope when inserting through trocars; however, there has been no standardized method. The purpose of this study was to compare the performance of different cleaning techniques with or without using dedicated devices, and to evaluate the features of cleaning devices.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The smudge was created in the standard 12-mm and 5-mm ports using pseudo-blood, and port cleaning was attempted using 5 different methods: (1) a surgical gauze + surgical forceps, (2) a surgical gauze + laparoscopic forceps, (3) a small laparoscopic gauze + laparoscopic forceps, (4) a cylinder-type cleaner (Endo Wiper; Osaki Medical), and (5) a swab-type cleaner (Port Cleaner; Hakuzo Medical). The \\\"port cleaning rate\\\" was calculated by measuring the absorbance of remained pseudo-blood after single cleaning procedure using UV spectrophotometry. In addition, the port cleaning rate was compared between two dedicated devices after multiple (5 times) cleaning procedures.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The two dedicated devices had a statistically higher cleaning rate for 12-mm port than the methods using surgical gauze (p < 0.05). Regarding the 5-mm port, a swab-type cleaner showed the highest cleaning rate than the gauze method and a cylinder-type cleaner (p < 0.05). After multiple cleaning procedures for 12-mm port, cleaning rate of a swab-type cleaner decreased by an average of 5.4% (p = 0.044), but cleaning rate did not decrease for a cylinder-type cleaner. Regarding the 5-mm port, cleaning rate statistically decreased for both two dedicated devices (p < 0.01).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Higher port cleaning rates were observed in techniques using dedicated devices. A swab-type cleaner had better port cleaning rate in single use, especially for the 5-mm port. A cylinder-type cleaner showed higher durability in cleaning 12-mm port. The features of these dedicated devices should be well understood, and cleaning methods should be selected according to the environment and surgical techniques.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":22174,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Surgical Endoscopy And Other Interventional Techniques\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Surgical Endoscopy And Other Interventional Techniques\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-024-11366-w\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"SURGERY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Surgical Endoscopy And Other Interventional Techniques","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-024-11366-w","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:在通过套管插入腹腔镜时,人们使用了各种技术来防止腹腔镜上的污迹,但一直没有标准化的方法。本研究的目的是比较使用或不使用专用设备的不同清洁技术的性能,并评估清洁设备的特点:使用假血在标准 12 毫米和 5 毫米端口制造污点,并尝试使用 5 种不同方法清洁端口:(1) 外科纱布 + 外科镊子;(2) 外科纱布 + 腹腔镜镊子;(3) 小型腹腔镜纱布 + 腹腔镜镊子;(4) 圆筒型清洁器(Endo Wiper;Osaki Medical);(5) 棉签型清洁器(Port Cleaner;Hakuzo Medical)。端口清洁率 "是通过使用紫外分光光度计测量单次清洁程序后残留假血的吸光度计算得出的。此外,还比较了两种专用装置在多次(5 次)清洁程序后的端口清洁率:结果:与使用手术纱布的方法相比,两种专用设备对 12 毫米端口的清洁率在统计学上更高(p 结论:使用手术纱布的方法对 12 毫米端口的清洁率更高:使用专用设备的技术可观察到更高的端口清洁率。棉签型清洁器在单次使用中的端口清洁率更高,尤其是 5 毫米端口。圆筒型清洁器在清洁 12 毫米接口时显示出更高的耐用性。应充分了解这些专用设备的特点,并根据环境和手术技术选择清洁方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Role of dedicated port cleaning devices in laparoscopic surgery.

Background: Various techniques have been used to prevent smudge on a laparoscope when inserting through trocars; however, there has been no standardized method. The purpose of this study was to compare the performance of different cleaning techniques with or without using dedicated devices, and to evaluate the features of cleaning devices.

Methods: The smudge was created in the standard 12-mm and 5-mm ports using pseudo-blood, and port cleaning was attempted using 5 different methods: (1) a surgical gauze + surgical forceps, (2) a surgical gauze + laparoscopic forceps, (3) a small laparoscopic gauze + laparoscopic forceps, (4) a cylinder-type cleaner (Endo Wiper; Osaki Medical), and (5) a swab-type cleaner (Port Cleaner; Hakuzo Medical). The "port cleaning rate" was calculated by measuring the absorbance of remained pseudo-blood after single cleaning procedure using UV spectrophotometry. In addition, the port cleaning rate was compared between two dedicated devices after multiple (5 times) cleaning procedures.

Results: The two dedicated devices had a statistically higher cleaning rate for 12-mm port than the methods using surgical gauze (p < 0.05). Regarding the 5-mm port, a swab-type cleaner showed the highest cleaning rate than the gauze method and a cylinder-type cleaner (p < 0.05). After multiple cleaning procedures for 12-mm port, cleaning rate of a swab-type cleaner decreased by an average of 5.4% (p = 0.044), but cleaning rate did not decrease for a cylinder-type cleaner. Regarding the 5-mm port, cleaning rate statistically decreased for both two dedicated devices (p < 0.01).

Conclusion: Higher port cleaning rates were observed in techniques using dedicated devices. A swab-type cleaner had better port cleaning rate in single use, especially for the 5-mm port. A cylinder-type cleaner showed higher durability in cleaning 12-mm port. The features of these dedicated devices should be well understood, and cleaning methods should be selected according to the environment and surgical techniques.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.10
自引率
12.90%
发文量
890
审稿时长
6 months
期刊介绍: Uniquely positioned at the interface between various medical and surgical disciplines, Surgical Endoscopy serves as a focal point for the international surgical community to exchange information on practice, theory, and research. Topics covered in the journal include: -Surgical aspects of: Interventional endoscopy, Ultrasound, Other techniques in the fields of gastroenterology, obstetrics, gynecology, and urology, -Gastroenterologic surgery -Thoracic surgery -Traumatic surgery -Orthopedic surgery -Pediatric surgery
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信