Decontamination and sterilization of laparoscopic SUDs for humans undergoing MIS is a controversial method.1–4 Such devices are typically reused because of economic concerns; however, reuse of disposable instruments may increase risk of infection for patients.1–4 Single-use surgical devices are typically made of less robust materials (eg, plastic and rubber) than are nondisposable surgical devices; therefore, decontamination and sterilization of SUDs can be difficult, and such devices are prone to mechanical malfunction when reused.1,4
Reuse of SUDs is common in the field of veterinary surgery. There are few reports of mechanical failure or adverse effects for animals when SUDs are reused for performance of surgery. To the authors' knowledge, it is unknown whether this scarcity of information is attributable to a lack of such effects or to underreporting of adverse events.
Veterinarians typically reuse laparoscopic SUDs because of the high cost of such devices. Veterinary surgeons and surgeons performing procedures for humans in developing or poor countries2 may have justification for reuse of SUDs during MIS because of economic concerns. However, adverse effects of such reuse of devices may be different between humans and other animals.
A disposable instrument port has been developed for use during single-incision laparoscopic surgery of humans. Although the material composition of that port is proprietary information of the manufacturer, the device has a gross appearance similar to firm, malleable foam. The advantage of this port for the performance of laparoscopic surgery is that 3 to 4 instruments can simultaneously be used though a single short incision. Results of other studies5,a indicate the device is useful for MIS in dogs and cats. However, the cost of the device is approximately $250 to $400; therefore, use of the device by veterinarians for single-incision laparoscopy of animals may be economically impractical.
The purpose of the study reported here was to determine the efficacy of decontamination and sterilization of a disposable port intended for use during single-incision laparoscopy. We hypothesized that a commonly used method of surgical instrument decontamination and sterilization would be efficacious for elimination of bacteria on this laparoscopic instrument port.
Minimally invasive surgery
Tryptic soy broth
Wilson D, Monnet E. The use of single incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS port) in dogs: description of the technique and initial impressions after 22 consecutive cases (abstr), in Proceedings. 9th Annu Sci Meet Vet Endosc Soc 2012;22.
SILS port, Covidien, Mansfield, Mass.
Biopsy Punch, Integra Miltex, York, Pa.
EO Gas Series 3, Andersen Sterilizers Inc, Haw River, NC.
TSB, Hardy Diagnostics, Santa Maria, Calif.
Bio-zyme, Osceola Supply, Tallahassee, Fla.
Humidichip, Andersen Products, Haw River, NC.
Ethylene oxide gas dosimeter, Andersen Products, Haw River, NC.
CBA, Hardy Diagnostics, Santa Maria, Calif.
CNA, Hardy Diagnostics, Santa Maria, Calif.
MAC, Hardy Diagnostics, Santa Maria, Calif.
JMP, version 9.0, SAS Institute Inc, Cary, NC.
1. Chan ACW, Ip M & Koehler A, et al. Is it safe to reuse disposable laparoscopic trocars? An in vitro testing. Surg Endosc 2000; 14: 1042–1044.
2. Hamamci EO, Besim H & Bostanoglu S, et al. Use of laparoscopic splenectomy in developing countries: analysis of cost and strategies for reducing cost. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 2002; 12: 253–258.
3. Yoon JH, Yoon BC & Lee HL, et al. Comparison of sterilization of reusable endoscopic biopsy forceps by autoclaving and ethylene oxide gas. Dig Dis Sci 2012; 57: 405–412.
4. Roth K, Heeg P & Reichl R. Specific hygiene issues relating to reprocessing and reuse of single-use devices for laparoscopic surgery. Surg Endosc 2002; 16: 1091–1097.
5. Manassero M, Leperlier D & Vallefuoco R, et al. Laparoscopic ovariectomy in dogs using a single-port multiple-access device. Vet Rec 2012; 171:69.
7. Kaouk JH, Goel RK & Haber GP, et al. Robotic single-port transumbilical surgery in humans: initial report. BJU Int 2009; 103: 366–369.
8. Prasad A, Mukherjee KA & Kaul S, et al. Postoperative pain after cholecystectomy: conventional laparoscopy versus single-incision laparoscopic surgery. J Minim Access Surg 2011; 7: 24–27.
9. Case JB, Marvel SJ & Boscan P, et al. Surgical time and severity of postoperative pain in dogs undergoing laparoscopic ovariectomy with one, two, or three instrument cannulas. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2011; 239: 203–208.
10. Dupré G, Fiorbianco V & Skalicky M, et al. Laparoscopic ovariectomy in dogs: comparison between single portal and two-portal access. Vet Surg 2009; 38: 818–824.
11. Mayhew PD, Freeman L & Kwan T, et al. Comparison of surgical site infection rates in clean and clean-contaminated wounds in dogs and cats after minimally invasive versus open surgery: 179 cases (2007–2008). J Am Vet Med Assoc 2012; 240: 193–198.
13. Rescorla FJ, Breitfeld PP & West KW, et al. A case controlled comparison of open and laparoscopic splenectomy in children. Surgery 1998; 124: 670–675.
14. Kimmery MB, Burnett DA & Carr-Locke DL, et al. Transmission of infection by gastrointestinal endoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 1993; 39: 885–888.
16. Vijayaraghavan R, Chandrashekhar R & Sujatha Y, et al. Hospital outbreak of atypical mycobacterial infection of port sites after laparoscopic surgery. J Hosp Infect 2006; 64: 344–347.
17. Kapoor A, Simmonds P & Gerold G, et al. Characterization of a canine homolog of hepatitis C virus. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2011; 108: 11608–11613.