Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
EN*,
*Department of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, Cairns Base Hospital, Cairns, Australia; and James Cook University,
Cairns, Australia
614
Methods
Sixty previously used Classic LMAs (Laryngeal Mask
Co., Henley-on-Thames, UK) were tested at the end of a
working day (20 40 uses; preuse check tests were
passed) (10). Each LMA was cleaned and sterilized as
follows: 1) immersion in a mild enzymatic solution (Enzyme Rapid; 3M, Pymble, Australia) for 3 min; 2) washing the external surfaces with a cloth for at least 1 min or
until all visible material was removed; 3) washing the
airway tube with a soft bristled brush or until all visible
material was removed; 4) placing the LMA in an automatic washer for 14 min, which included warm washing
at 55C with a disinfectant and hot washing at 85C; 5)
placing in a dryer for 30 min at 75C; and 6) autoclaving
at 134C for 4 min at 206 kPa.
The LMAs were randomly allocated (by opening an
opaque envelope) into two equal-sized groups for
supplementary cleaning. In Group A, the cuff was
immersed in potassium permanganate 2 mg/L at 20C
for 20 min. In Group B (control), the cuff was immersed in sterile water at 20C for 20 min. After supplementary cleaning, the LMAs were immersed for
30 min in a protein staining solution (1.2% erythrosin
B) (11) and rinsed in sterile water at 20C for 1 min,
and a high-resolution digital image (3.3 megapixels)
was taken of the dorsal surface. The severity of staining was scored according to the percentage of area
2004 by the International Anesthesia Research Society
0003-2999/04
ANESTH ANALG
2004;99:614 6
Results
Data on the severity of staining are given in Table 1.
The severity of protein contamination was reduced
after supplementary cleaning in potassium permanganate (2 43; P 0.00001). Protein contamination was
detected on six LMAs after supplementary cleaning in
potassium permanganate compared with all LMAs in
the control group.
Discussion
There are four studies which have examined protein
contamination with reusable LMAs. Miller et al. (4),
Chu et al. (7), and Clery et al. (8) found that all
reusable LMAs had some protein contamination after
routine cleaning and autoclaving. Coetzee (9) found
that systematic cleaning and scrubbing was more effective than routine cleaning, but only for accessible
locations, and that ultrasonic cleaning was more effective than routine cleaning, but only for inaccessible
locations; however, none of these techniques eliminated staining altogether. In contrast, we found that
potassium permanganate 2 mg/L eliminated protein
deposits from 80% of reusable LMAs.
Potassium permanganate, also known as chameleon
mineral, is a powerful antioxidant that chemically
burns up organic material. It is widely used as a
disinfectant when diluted with water or acetone. It has
been used in humans to treat leg venous ulcers (12)
and psoriasis (13) and as an abortifacient (14). Interestingly, Kimberlin et al. (15), in a 1983 study, found
that potassium permanganate 2 mg/L reduced the
infectivity titer of mouse-passaged scrapie, but it was
not considered sufficiently powerful to be used as a
decontaminant.
A limitation of our study is that we did not quantify
the mass of residual protein removed by the potassium permanganate. This is a difficult measurement to
make because the protein is too adherent to be dissolved into solution for a protein assay. However, an
approximation of the amount removed can be made
by assuming that the density of protein staining is
uniform and that the actual area of staining for mild
(0%25%), moderate (25%50%), and heavy (50%
75%) is the midpoint of these values, that is, 12.5%,
37.5%, and 62.5%, respectively. A simple calculation
reveals that the average area of staining per LMA after
permanganate was 2.5% [(12.5% 6)/30] and after
BRIEF REPORT
615
Permanganate
Control
None
Mild
Moderate
Heavy
Severe
24 (80)
6 (20)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
13 (43)
14 (46)
3 (10)
0 (0)
References
1. Will RG, Ironside JW, Zeidler M. A new variant of CreutzfeldtJacob disease in the UK. Lancet 1996;347:9215.
616
BRIEF REPORT
ANESTH ANALG
2004;99:614 6