不同消毒方法对普通手术室空气消毒效果的比较

Comparison of the effects of different methods on air disinfection in ordinary operating rooms

目的分析并评价等离子体空气消毒器、空气层流净化系统及紫外线消毒对普通手术室空气消毒的效果。方法选取本院面积相近、位置相邻的3间普通手术室,随机分别采用空气层流净化系统、等离子体空气消毒器和紫外线进行空气消毒。在各手术室进行空气采样作细菌培养,依据菌落数计算消毒后的空气质量合格率,并比较手术室消毒前后不同时间点的消毒效果。结果等离子体空气消毒器、空气层流净化系统和紫外线消毒后的手术室空气质量合格率分别为92.00%、100.00%和86.00%。消毒前10 min三组间比较和消毒后60 min三组间比较,手术室菌落数差异均无统计学意义(F值分别为0.055和2.506,均P>0.05);消毒120 min空气层流净化系统消毒组与等离子体空气消毒器组和紫外线消毒组比较手术室菌落数显著减少(F=8.429,P<0.01)。等离子体空气消毒器组手术室消毒60 min和120 min时的菌落数显著少于消毒前10 min的菌落数(t值分别为47.226和40.436,均P<0.01),消毒结束后120 min时的菌落数显著多于消毒结束后60 min时的菌落数(t=-3.105,P<0.01);空气层流净化系统组手术室在消毒60 min和120 min时的菌落数显著少于消毒前10 min菌落数(t值分别为50.200、48.419,均P<0.01),消毒结束后120 min与消毒结束后60 min比较菌落数差异无统计学意义(t=-1.083,P>0.05);紫外线组手术室消毒60 min和120 min时的菌落数显著少于消毒前10 min菌落数(t值分别为62.070和54.924,均P<0.01),消毒结束后120 min与消毒结束后60 min时比较菌落数差异有统计学意义(t=-2.493,P<0.05)。结论空气层流净化系统消毒后的手术室空气质量合格率和消毒后不同时间点的消毒效果均优于等离子体空气消毒器消毒和紫外线消毒,适合普通手术室采用。

Objective To analyze and evaluate the effects of a plasma air sterilizer, a laminar air flow purification system, and ultraviolet(UV) disinfection on air disinfection in ordinary operating rooms. Methods Study sites were 3 general operating rooms with a similar area that were located close by in this Hospital. Sites were randomly divided into one where a laminar air flow purification system was used, one where a plasma air sterilizer was used, and one where UV disinfection was used. The rate at which air quality standards were met after disinfection and the number of colonies at different time points before and after disinfection were compared in each room. Results The rate at which air quality standards were met was 92.00% in an operating room where a plasma air sterilizer was used, 100.00% in an operating room where a laminar air flow purification system was used, and 86.00% in an operating room where UV disinfection was used. There were no significant differences in colony counts in the operating rooms 10 min before disinfection and 60 min after disinfection(F=0.055, 2.506, P>0.05). One hundred and twenty min after disinfection, the number of colonies in an operating room where a laminar air flow purification system was used decreased markedly compared to the number in an operating room where a plasma air sterilizer was used and an operating room where UV disinfection was used(F=8.429, P<0.01). The number of colonies 60 min and 120 min after disinfection of an operating room where a plasma air sterilizer was used was markedly lower than the number 10 min before disinfection(t = 47.226, 40.436, P<0.01). The number of colonies 120 min after disinfection was markedly lower than the number 60 min after disinfection(t=-3.105, P<0.01). The number of colonies 60 min and 120 min after disinfection of an operating room where a laminar air flow purification system was used was markedly lower than the number 10 min before disinfection(t = 50.200, 48.419, P<0.01). The number of colonies did not differ significantly 60 min and 120 min after disinfection(t=-1.083, P>0.05). The number of colonies 60 min and 120 min after disinfection of an operating room where UV disinfection was used was markedly lower than the number 10 min before disinfection(t = 62.070, 54.924, P<0.01). The number of colonies did not differ significantly 60 min and 120 min after disinfection(t=-2.493, P<0.05). Conclusion Use of a laminar air flow purification system resulted in a higher rate at which air quality standards were met and a lower number of colonies at different time points after disinfection compared to use of a plasma air sterilizer or UV disinfection. A laminar air flow purification system is more suitable for the disinfection of ordinary operating rooms, and it can effectively reduce the risk of infection in the operating room.