灌流管在消化内镜管道干燥中的应用研究

Application of perfusion tube in the drying of digestive endoscope channels

摘要:

目的 利用透明镜模型比较灌流管和压力气枪对内镜管道干燥的影响，从而探讨灌流管在内镜管道干燥中的应用价值。方法 透明镜模型经过标准的手工清洗消毒流程后，随机分为A组和B组，每组进行30次试验，A组采用灌流管自动向内镜各管道内送气，B组采用压力气枪手动向内镜各管道内送气。采用目测和放大镜观察内镜各管道的液体残留情况，比较两组内镜管道彻底干燥的时间和操作者的躯体疲劳程度。结果 A组管道平均干燥时间为（366.47±75.74）s，B组平均干燥时间为（338.40±65.81）s，两组比较，差异无统计学意义（t = -1.53，P = 0.131）；A组操作者的躯体疲劳程度较B组轻，两组比较，差异有统计学意义（t = 16.79，P < 0.01）。结论 使用灌流管和压力气枪彻底干燥内镜管道的送气时间无明显差异，但使用灌流管时，操作者的躯体疲劳程度轻，故推荐临床使用灌流管干燥内镜管道。

Abstract:

Objective To compare the effects of perfusion tube and pressure air gun on endoscopic channels drying by using the stripped endoscope model, so as to explore the application value of perfusion tube in endoscopic channels drying.Methods After the standard manual cleaning and disinfection process, the stripped endoscope model was randomly divided into group A and group B. Each group was subjected to 30 tests. Group A was injected with a perfusion tube, and group B was injected with a pressure air gun. The liquid residues in the endoscope tubes were observed visually and with a magnifying lens, and the time of thorough drying of the endoscope channels and the physical fatigue of the operators were compared between the two groups.Results The average drying time of the group A was (366.47 ± 75.74) s, the average drying time of the group B was (338.40 ± 65.81) s, there was no significant difference between the two groups (t = -1.53, P = 0.131). The fatigue degree of the group A was lower than group B (t = 16.79, P < 0.01).Conclusion There is no statistical difference in the air delivery time between the perfusion tube and the pressure air gun drying endoscopic tube, and the operator's physical fatigue is light when the perfusion tube is used, so it is recommended to use the perfusion tube drying endoscopic tube in clinic.