<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"  xmlns:isc="http://dtd.interspire.com/rss/isc-1.0.dtd">
	<channel>
		<title><![CDATA[PrecisionMedicalDevices: Latest News]]></title>
		<link>https://www.pmdinstruments.com</link>
		<description><![CDATA[The latest news from PrecisionMedicalDevices.]]></description>
		<pubDate>Sat, 02 May 2026 23:09:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<isc:store_title><![CDATA[PrecisionMedicalDevices]]></isc:store_title>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Surgical Instruments: Disinfection or Replacement?]]></title>
			<link>https://www.pmdinstruments.com/blog/surgical-instruments-disinfection-or-replacement/</link>
			<pubDate>Wed, 29 Apr 2015 18:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.pmdinstruments.com/blog/surgical-instruments-disinfection-or-replacement/</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[<p>We
live in a world that is filled with medical advances.  We have developed equipment and instruments
and treatment plans that have helped us address and cure those conditions that
are deadly and debilitating.  Cutting
edge technology and the skills of our practitioners have led the way.  But oftentimes something that seems to be so
insignificant as to be overlooked can also be the cause of serious problems.</p><p>Early
2015 came with not only a promise of a new year of medical breakthroughs but
also the discovery of a superbug known as CRE. It is termed a “superbug”
because it is resistant to even the most advanced antibiotics. This surfaced
during endoscopy procedures in a major California hospital.  So far this year, more than 7 patients there have
been found to be infected with CRE and 2 succumbed to the illness. The bug
carried from one patient to another through crevices in the endoscopes which
survived reprocessing procedures.  </p><p>What
does this mean in the world of surgical instruments? The question to be asked
is, is any level of disinfecting and sterilizing enough?  As a corollary what is the danger of cross
contamination during re-processing?  The
most reliable course of preventative action is to move to single use
instruments wherever possible. </p><p>According
to the guideline for disinfection and sterilization in healthcare facilities published
in 2008, there are recommended procedures to disinfect your instruments. One of
the most common forms of sterilization is steam sterilization. This is when
saturated steam under high pressure sterilizes the surgical tools. There are
larger steam sterilization chambers for larger institutions while smaller
clinics use portable versions. There is also flash sterilization which is used
on unwrapped objects at high temperatures for about 3 to 4 minutes.  This is useful but not advisable for tools
that will penetrate the human body. While all of these offer a form of
sterilization, the efficacy can vary depending upon the type of sterilization
that you use. </p><p>The
most instruments that require attentive re-processing are the most commonly
used ones, for example forceps, because they are invasive by nature, and are therefore
more susceptible to germs and superbugs.  The same applies to other often used
instruments such as scissors and clamps, again used to for a number of
applications, but often for use with bandages, cloth or even stitching material
in the operating room. These and many more carry a significant risk of
spreading an incurable infection. </p><p>So
what is the institution to do?  Single
use, disposable instruments significantly reduce biologic incidences.  The single use instruments that are being
manufactured today are exponentially better than they have every been.  The strength of the surgical grade steel that
is used, the sharpness of the cutting edges, and smoothness of opening and
closing provide the practitioner with everything needed for excellent patient
care.  And the single use nature of the
product provides protection against cross contamination.  It is also worth noting that in addition to
the cost of these instruments being much less than comparable reusable ones the
institution will also save on the often hidden cost of reprocessing.&nbsp;</p>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>We
live in a world that is filled with medical advances.  We have developed equipment and instruments
and treatment plans that have helped us address and cure those conditions that
are deadly and debilitating.  Cutting
edge technology and the skills of our practitioners have led the way.  But oftentimes something that seems to be so
insignificant as to be overlooked can also be the cause of serious problems.</p><p>Early
2015 came with not only a promise of a new year of medical breakthroughs but
also the discovery of a superbug known as CRE. It is termed a “superbug”
because it is resistant to even the most advanced antibiotics. This surfaced
during endoscopy procedures in a major California hospital.  So far this year, more than 7 patients there have
been found to be infected with CRE and 2 succumbed to the illness. The bug
carried from one patient to another through crevices in the endoscopes which
survived reprocessing procedures.  </p><p>What
does this mean in the world of surgical instruments? The question to be asked
is, is any level of disinfecting and sterilizing enough?  As a corollary what is the danger of cross
contamination during re-processing?  The
most reliable course of preventative action is to move to single use
instruments wherever possible. </p><p>According
to the guideline for disinfection and sterilization in healthcare facilities published
in 2008, there are recommended procedures to disinfect your instruments. One of
the most common forms of sterilization is steam sterilization. This is when
saturated steam under high pressure sterilizes the surgical tools. There are
larger steam sterilization chambers for larger institutions while smaller
clinics use portable versions. There is also flash sterilization which is used
on unwrapped objects at high temperatures for about 3 to 4 minutes.  This is useful but not advisable for tools
that will penetrate the human body. While all of these offer a form of
sterilization, the efficacy can vary depending upon the type of sterilization
that you use. </p><p>The
most instruments that require attentive re-processing are the most commonly
used ones, for example forceps, because they are invasive by nature, and are therefore
more susceptible to germs and superbugs.  The same applies to other often used
instruments such as scissors and clamps, again used to for a number of
applications, but often for use with bandages, cloth or even stitching material
in the operating room. These and many more carry a significant risk of
spreading an incurable infection. </p><p>So
what is the institution to do?  Single
use, disposable instruments significantly reduce biologic incidences.  The single use instruments that are being
manufactured today are exponentially better than they have every been.  The strength of the surgical grade steel that
is used, the sharpness of the cutting edges, and smoothness of opening and
closing provide the practitioner with everything needed for excellent patient
care.  And the single use nature of the
product provides protection against cross contamination.  It is also worth noting that in addition to
the cost of these instruments being much less than comparable reusable ones the
institution will also save on the often hidden cost of reprocessing.&nbsp;</p>]]></content:encoded>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
