Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Bacterial contamination of ultrasound probes in different radiological institutions before and after specific hygiene training: do we have a general hygienical problem?

  • Ultrasound
  • Published:
European Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objectives

Aim was to investigate hygienic conditions of ultrasound probes before and after hygiene training in radiology institutions in comparison to bacterial contamination in public places.

Methods

In three radiology departments, bacterial contamination was evaluated using baseline agar plates for cultures taken from 36 ultrasound probes. Afterwards teams were trained by a hygiene service centre and 36 ultrasound probes were routinely disinfected with regular disinfecting wipes and then evaluated. In comparison, bacterial contamination in public places (bus poles, n = 11; toilet seats, n = 10) were analysed. Plates were routinely incubated and the number of colony forming units (CFU) analysed.

Results

Cultures taken from the probes showed a median of 53 CFU before and 0 CFU after training (p < 0.001). Cultures taken from public places showed a median of 4 CFU from toilets and 28 from bus poles and had lower bacterial load in comparison to ultrasound probes before training (p = 0.055, toilets; p = 0.772, bus poles), without statistical significance.

Conclusions

Bacterial contamination of ultrasound probes prior to hygiene training proved to be high and showed higher bacterial load than toilets seats or bus poles. Radiologists should be aware that the lack of hygiene in the field of ultrasound diagnostics puts patients at risk of healthcare-associated infections.

Key points

• Hospital-associated infections are a problem for patient care.

• Hygiene training of staff prevents bacterial contamination of ultrasound probes.

• Disinfection of ultrasound probes is an easy method to protect patients.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Murphy RA, Chua AC (2016) Prevention of common healthcare-associated infections in humanitarian hospitals. Curr Opin Infect Dis 29:381–387

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Klevens RM, Edwards JR, Richards CL et al (2007) Estimating health care-associated infections and deaths in US Hospitals, 2002. Public Health Rep 122:160–166

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Stone PW (2010) Economic burden of healthcare-associated infections: an American perspective. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 9:417–422

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Paul R, Das NK, Dutta R, Bandyopadhyay R, Banerjee AK (2011) Bacterial contamination of the hands of doctors: a study in the medicine and dermatology wards. Indian J Dermatol Venereol Leprol 77:307–313

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Ejtehadi F, Ejtehadi F, Cohen J, Arasteh MM (2014) A safe and practical decontamination method to reduce the risk of bacterial colonizsation of ultrasound transducers. J Clin Ultrasound 42:395–398

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Karadeniz YM, Kilic D, Altan K, Altinok D, Güney S (2001) Evaluation of the role of ultrasound machines as a source of nosocomial and cross-infection. Invest Radiol 36:554–558

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Mullaney PJ, Munthali P, Vlachou P, Jenkins D, Rathod A, Entwisle J (2007) How clean is your probe? Microbiological assessment of ultrasound transducers in routine clinical use, and cost-effective ways to reduce contamination. Clin Radiol 62:694–698

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Frazee B, Fahimi J, Lambert L, Nagdev A (2011) Emergency department ultrasonographic probe contamination and experimental model of probe disinfection. Ann Emerg Med 58:56–63

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Chu K, Obaid H, Babyn P, Blondeau J (2014) Bacterial contamination of ultrasound probes at a tertiary referral university medical center. AJR 203:928–932

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Davis CP (1996) Normal flora. In: Baron S (ed) Medical microbiology, 4th edn. University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston

    Google Scholar 

  11. Lawrence MW, Blanks J, Ayala R et al (2014) Hospital-wide survey of bacterial contamination of point-of-care ultrasound probes and coupling gel. J Ultrasound Med 33:457–462

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Koibuchi H, Kotani K, Taniguchi N (2013) Ultrasound probes as a possible vector of bacterial transmission. Med Ultrason 15:41–44

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Hayashi S, Koibuchi H, Taniguchi N, Hirai Y (2012) Evaluation of procedures for decontaminating ultrasound probes. J Med Ultrasonics 39:11–14

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Gerlich MG, Piegsa J, Schäfer C et al (2015) Improving hospital hygiene to reduce the impact of multidrug-resistant organisms in health care - a prospective controlled multicenter study. BMC Infect Dis 15:441

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. [No authors listed] (2015) Health care-associated infections in the USA. Lancet 385:304

  16. Buerke B, Mellmann A, Kipp F, Heindel W, Wessling J (2012) Hyienic aspects in radiology: what the radiologist should know. Röfo 184:1099–1109

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Muradali D, Gold WL, Phillips A, Wilson S (1995) Can ultrasound probes and coupling gel be a source of nosocomial infection in patients undergoing sonography? An in vivo and in vitro study. AJR Am J Roentgenol 164:1521–1524

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Rutala WA, Weber DJ (2010) Guideline for disinfection and sterilization of prion-contaminated medical instruments. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 31:2107–2117

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Daniela Jegher from St. Anna Clinic in Lucerne (Switzerland), who led and organized hygiene training of the radiology team in an outstanding manner. We would also like to thank Andrea Pfeifer from the statistical service centre University Zürich for evaluating biomathemathical data.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Chemistry and Applied Biosciences, Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences, ETH Zurich, Vladimir-Prelog-Weg 1-5/10, 8093, Zurich, Switzerland

    Thomas Sartoretti, Elisabeth Sartoretti & Andreas Gutzeit

  2. Institute of Radiology, Kantonsspital Winterthur, Brauerstrasse 15, 8401, Winterthur, Switzerland

    Thomas Sartoretti, Elisabeth Sartoretti, Aleksis Doert, Christoph Binkert, Orpheus Kolokythas & Sabine Sartoretti-Schefer

  3. Bioexam AG, Labor für Lebensmittel, Heilmittel und Hygiene, Maihofstrasse 95a, P.O. Box 6858, 6000, Lucerne 6, Switzerland

    Candid Bucher

  4. Department of Radiology, Paracelsus Medical University Salzburg, Salzburg, Austria

    Klaus Hergan, Matthias Meissnitzer & Andreas Gutzeit

  5. Institute of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Hirslanden Klinik St. Anna, St. Anna-Strasse 32, 6006, Lucerne, Switzerland

    Johannes Froehlich, Simon Matoori, Sebastian Kos & Andreas Gutzeit

  6. Department of Radiology, University Washington, 1959 NE Pacific St., Seattle, WA, 98190, USA

    Orpheus Kolokythas

  7. Department of Infectious Diseases and Hospital Epidemiology, Hirslanden Klinik St. Anna, St. Anna-Strasse 32, 6006, Lucerne, Switzerland

    Christina Orasch

Authors
  1. Thomas Sartoretti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Elisabeth Sartoretti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Candid Bucher
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Aleksis Doert
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Christoph Binkert
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Klaus Hergan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Matthias Meissnitzer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Johannes Froehlich
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Orpheus Kolokythas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Simon Matoori
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Christina Orasch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Sebastian Kos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Sabine Sartoretti-Schefer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  14. Andreas Gutzeit
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andreas Gutzeit.

Ethics declarations

Guarantor

The scientific guarantor of this publication is Andreas Gutzeit.

Conflict of interest

The authors of this manuscript declare no relationships with any companies whose products or services may be related to the subject matter of the article.

Funding

The authors state that this work has not received any funding.

Statistics and biometry

Andrea Pfeifer kindly provided statistical advice for this manuscript.

Ethical approval

Approval from the institutional animal care committee was not required because no animals were included.

Methodology

• prospective

• randomised controlled trial

• multicentre study

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sartoretti, T., Sartoretti, E., Bucher, C. et al. Bacterial contamination of ultrasound probes in different radiological institutions before and after specific hygiene training: do we have a general hygienical problem?. Eur Radiol 27, 4181–4187 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-017-4812-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-017-4812-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation