论文部分内容阅读
目的比较不同方法干燥管腔器械的效果。方法将300件管腔器械(包括腔镜器械、超声刀和气腹管)分为3组,每组100件,完成终末清洗后,在温度恒定条件下,用气枪或干布将器械表面水分擦去,干燥时间均为25 min。A组采用温度设为70℃普通医用高温干燥柜干燥;B组采用温度设为70℃普通医用高温干燥柜加高压气枪吹干燥;C组采用新型低温真空干燥柜干燥。运用目测法和物理方法比较3种方法的干燥效果。结果 A组36%管腔器械干燥后有少量残留水份;B组18%管腔器械干燥后有少量的残留水份;C组1%管腔器械干燥后有少量残留水份。结论 C组采用新型的低温真空干燥技术优于A、B组传统的干燥柜技术,值得临床推广。
Objective To compare the effects of different methods of drying lumen devices. Methods 300 pieces of lumen instruments (including endoscopic instruments, ultrasonic knife and pneumoperitoneum) were divided into 3 groups with 100 in each group. After finishing the final cleaning, under the condition of constant temperature, the surface of the instrument with air gun or dry cloth Wipe off, drying time is 25 min. Group A was set to a temperature of 70 ℃ ordinary medical high temperature drying cabinet drying; Group B using a temperature set to 70 ℃ ordinary medical high temperature drying cabinet plus high pressure air gun blowing dry; C group using a new low temperature vacuum drying cabinet drying. Using the visual method and the physical method to compare the drying effects of the three methods. Results A group of 36% lumen devices had a small amount of residual moisture after drying. Group B 18% lumen devices had a small amount of residual moisture after drying. Group C 1% lumen devices had a small amount of residual moisture after drying. Conclusion The new low-temperature vacuum drying technology in group C is superior to the traditional drying cabinet technology in group A and B, which is worthy of clinical promotion.