Highlights
- •3D printing of medical devices and surgical tools is increasing.
- •Reliable sterilization methods for these devices must be developed.
- •This project successfully developed a reliable and rapid high-level disinfection process for 3D printed surgical tools for the austere environment.
- •Results showed no growth on subsequent cultures following bacterial contamination.
Abstract
Introduction
Medical operations are vulnerable to global supply chain fluctuations. The ability
to locally produce and reliably sterilize medical equipment may mitigate this risk.
This project developed a reliable high-level disinfection process for 3D printed surgical
tools.
Methods
Surgical instruments and consumables were designed and printed from various materials.
Devices contaminated with known and unknown bacteria underwent one of three cleaning
methods followed by high-level disinfection using submersion in a Cidex OPA Solution.
Devices were then cultured on blood agar plates and incubated for 48 h. Positive and
negative controls were performed.
Results
The results of control experiments showed no growth on negative controls and significant
growth on all positive control plates. Of the three cleaning methods tested, one showed
no growth: cleaning with isopropyl alcohol and chlorhexidine followed by Cidex bath.
Discussion
This project successfully developed a rapid high-level disinfection process for 3D
printed surgical instruments made from two different types of 3D printing material.
Keywords
To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
Purchase one-time access:
Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online accessOne-time access price info
- For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
- For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'
Subscribe:
Subscribe to The American Journal of SurgeryAlready a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
References
- Review: Medical Supply Chain Responses to the COVID-19 Pandemic. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2020 (2021. Accessed 2022. Available from)
- At the epicenter of COVID-19–the tragic failure of the global supply chain for medical supplies.Front Public Health. 2020; 8https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2020.562882
- How the Supply Chain Upheaval Became a Life-Or-Death Threat [Online Newspaper].New York Times, New York, NY2021 (Accessed 2022. Available from)
- 3D Printing for Dummies.Second ed. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, New Jersey2017
- Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee (HICPAC). Guideline for Disinfection and Sterilization in Healthcare Facilities.Center for Disease Control, 2008 (Updated May 2019. Accessed 2022. Available from)
- Reprocessing Medical Devices in Health Care Settings: Validation Methods and Labeling - Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff. U.S Food and Drug Administration, 2015 (Updated 2017. Accessed 2022)
- Multisociety guideline on reprocessing flexible gastrointestinal endoscopes: 2011.Gastrointest Endosc. 2011; 73: 1075-1084https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2011.03.1183
- ASTM D638-22 Standard Test Method for Tensile Properties of Plastics. 8. ASTM International Book of Standards, 2022https://doi.org/10.1520/D0638-22 (01)
- FDA-cleared Sterilants and High Level Disinfectants with General Claims for Processing Reusable Medical and Dental Devices 2015. U.S. Food and Drug Administration, 2015 (Updated 2019. Accessed 2022)
- An evaluation of Cidex OPA (0.55% ortho-phthalaldehyde) as an alternative to 2% glutaraldehyde for high-level disinfection of endoscopes.J Hosp Infect. 2003; 54: 226-231https://doi.org/10.1016/S0195-6701(03)00040-9
- Diseases affecting pigs: an overview of common bacterial, viral and parasitic pathogens of pigs. Achieving sustainable production of pig meat: animal health and welfare.in: University of Nottingham, UK. Burleigh Dodds Series in Agricultural Science No. 25. 3. Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing, Cambridge, UK2018https://doi.org/10.19103/AS.2017.0013.14
- On the intrinsic sterility of 3D printing.PeerJ. 2016 Dec 1; 4 (PMID: 27920950; PMCID: PMC5136128)e2661https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.2661
Article info
Publication history
Accepted:
March 10,
2023
Received in revised form:
February 26,
2023
Received:
November 13,
2022
Publication stage
In Press Journal Pre-ProofIdentification
Copyright
© 2023 Published by Elsevier Inc.
