清洗刷材质与刷洗速度对内镜导光软管内吸引管道清洗质量的影响*

Effect of cleaning brush material and brushing speed on the quality of suction pipe cleaning in endoscopy light hose*

摘要:

富士胃镜EG-450WR5与富士结肠镜EC-600WM导光软管内吸引管道的长度一致，选取1.70 m的导光软管内的吸引管道，分析不同刷洗速度与不同材质清洗刷对相同长度的胃镜和结肠镜导光软管内吸引管道清洗质量的影响，探讨内镜导光软管内吸引管道最佳的刷洗速度与清洗刷材质。方法?选取该院内镜室2017年3月－2017年9月应用的160条内镜，胃镜EG-450WR5和结肠镜EC-600WM各80条，随机分为4组（A、B、C和D组），每组又分为两组（Ⅰ组，Ⅱ组），塑料材质海绵刷头清洗刷（Ⅰ组）和钢丝材质塑料刷头清洗刷（Ⅱ组），每组中均包括20条胃镜和20条肠镜。应用不同材质的清洗刷对4组（A、B、C和D组）采取速度分别为0.57、0.34、0.21和0.17 m/s，耗时分别用3、5、8和10 s，每条均进行100人次的清洗之后，对吸引管道进行菌落数监测，从而得出最佳的刷洗速度。对自购的8条导光软管内的吸引管道采用的速度分别为0.57、0.34、0.21和0.17 m/s，应用不同材质（塑料材质海绵刷头清洗刷；钢丝材质塑料刷头清洗刷）对吸引管道进行100次的清洗，之后用手术剪刀纵向抛开吸引管道用放大内镜进行观察，查看管道损害程度。结果?C组中钢丝材质塑料刷头速度在0.21 m/s清洗胃镜和结肠镜导光软管内的吸引管道时，细菌采样菌落数明显优于其他3组的清洗效果，差异有统计学意义（P <0.05）。对自购的8条导管软管内的吸引管道以4个速度、两种材质的刷子模拟进行100人次刷洗，C组管道内壁损坏程度优于其他3组。结论?采用钢丝材质塑料刷头的清洗刷、刷洗速度在0.21 m/s（清洗时间为8 s），对胃镜和结肠镜导光软管内吸引管道清洗质量最佳。

Abstract:

To investigate the effect of different brushing speeds and materials on the cleaning quality of the same length of EG-450WR5 and EC-600WM light guide hose of Fuji colonoscopy, and explore the best brushing speed degree and cleaning brush material of the endoscopic light guide hose. Methods 160 endoscopes were selected from March 2017 to September 2017, 80 of them were EG-450WR5 and 80 of them were EC-600WM respectively. They were randomly divided into four groups (A, B, C, D). Each group consisted of 20 gastroscopes and 20 enteroscopes. Four groups (A, B, C and D) were cleaned with different material brushes at speeds of 0.57, 0.34, 0.21 and 0.17 m/s. The time-consuming time was 3, 5, 8 and 10 s, respectively. After 100 person-times cleaning, the colony number of the attracting pipes was monitored, and the optimal cleaning speed was obtained. The speed of the suction pipes in the eight self-purchased light guide hoses were 0.57, 0.34, 0.21 and 0.17 m/s, respectively. The suction pipes were cleaned 100 times with different materials (plastic sponge brush head cleaning brush; steel wire plastic brush head cleaning brush), and then the suction pipes were observed with magnifying endoscopy after the operation scissors were thrown lengthways to check the damage degree of the pipes. Results The bacterial colonies in group C were significantly better than those in the other three groups when the speed of plastic brush head made of steel wire was 0.21 m/s to clean the suction tube in the light guide tube of gastroscope and colonoscopy (P < 0.05). The suction pipes in 8 self-purchased conduit hoses were washed 100 times at 4 speeds with two kinds of material brushes. The damage degree of the inner wall of group C was obviously better than that of the other three groups as shown in the figure. Conclusion The cleaning speed of steel wire plastic brush head is 0.21 m/s (cleaning time is 8 s), and the cleaning quality of the suction tube in gastroscope and colonoscope light guide tube is the best.