Development the Clip Lock for Strap Sterile Operating Microscope Drape and Evaluation of its Effectiveness

Main Article Content

Tamakorn Pongsukwetchakul
Natthacha Chiannilkulchai

Abstract

Abstract
This study aimed at developing a clip lock for strapping to an operating microscope drape, as well as evaluating its effectiveness. The study was conducted in two phases: design and development, and evaluation. The sample consisted of 36 operating nurses and six orthopedic surgeons in a tertiary hospital selected by convenience sampling. Instruments, including the record of problems in using clip lock form, and the clip lock evaluation form, were used to elicit the participants’ opinions regarding use of the clip lock. The data were analyzed with descriptive statistics. The results showed a consensus that the devised clip lock was effective in all aspects. For each aspect, the valuable of the clip lock was rated as the highest mean score, and the ease of locking-unlocking of the device was rated as the lowest mean score. The most common problem of using the clip lock was applying the clip lock on the wrong side of the clip lock, resulting in delays in re-attaching it on the correct side. Nevertheless, the clip lock can be strapped to the operating microscope drape easily and protects the drape from falling into the surgical area, which helps to reduce surgical site infection. A recommendation for further development is to lengthen the lock to close and open easily for increased convenience of use.



Keywords: Medical device, Operating microscope drape, Contamination, Effectiveness evaluation, Clip lock

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

How to Cite
1.
Pongsukwetchakul T, Chiannilkulchai N. Development the Clip Lock for Strap Sterile Operating Microscope Drape and Evaluation of its Effectiveness. Rama Nurs J [Internet]. 2018 Oct. 4 [cited 2022 Oct. 7];24(2):163-77. Available from: https://he02.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/RNJ/article/view/149003
Section
บทความวิจัย

References

1. Osterhoff G, Spirig J, Klasen J, Kuster SP, Zinkernagel AS, Sax H, et al. Perforation and bacterial contamination of microscope covers in lumbar spinal decompressive surgery. Med Princ Pract. 2014;23(4):302-6. doi: 10.1159/000362794.

2. Weiner BK, Kilgore WB. Bacterial shedding in common spine surgical procedures: headlamp/loupes and the operative microscope. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2007;32(8):918-20. doi: 10.1097/01.brs.0000259837.54411.60.

3. Basques BA, Golinvaux NS, Bohl DD, Yacob A, Toy JO, Varthi AG, et al. Use of an operating microscope during spine surgery is associated with minor increases in operating room times and no increased risk of infection. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2014;39(22):1910-6. doi: 10.1097/brs.0000000000000558.

4. Dunsmuir RA. Microdiscectomy/microdecompression for intraspinal intervertebral disc prolapses and lateral recess stenosis. In: Giannoudis PV, editor. Practical procedures in elective orthopedic surgery: Upper extremity and spine. London: Springer London; 2012. p. 197-204.

5. Schmid SL, Wechsler C, Farshad M, Antoniadis A, Ulrich NH, Min K, et al. Surgery for lumbar disc herniation: analysis of 500 consecutive patients treated in an interdisciplinary spine centre. Journal of Clinical Neuroscience. 2016;27:40-3. doi: 10.1016/j. jocn.2015.08.038.

6. Rulffes W. Technological advances of surgical microscopes for spine surgery. In: Mayer HM, editor. Minimally invasive spine surgery: a surgical manual. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg; 2006. p. 8-11.

7. Kurtz SM, Lau E, Ong KL, Carreon L, Watson H, Albert T, et al. Infection risk for primary and revision instrumented lumbar spine fusion in the Medicare population. J Neurosurg Spine. 2012;17(4):342-7. doi: 10.3171/2012.7.spine12203.

8. Ojo O, Owolabi B, Oseni A, Kanu O, Bankole O. Surgical site infection in posterior spine surgery. Nigerian Journal of Clinical Practice. 2016;19(6):821-6. doi: 10.4103/1119-3077.183237.

9. Kobayashi K, Imagama S, Kato D, Ando K, Hida T, Ito K, et al. Collaboration with an infection control team for patients with infection after spine surgery. Am J Infect Control. 2017;45(7):767-70. doi: 10.1016/j.ajic.2017.01.013.

10. Corenman DS, Strauch EL, Dornan GJ, Otterstrom E, King LZ. Navigation accuracy comparing non-covered frame and use of plastic sterile drapes to cover the reference frame in 3D acquisition. Int J Spine Surg. 2017;3(3):392-7. doi: 10.21037/jss.2017.08.14.

11. Asepsis Products from Carl Zeiss [Internet]. 2004 [cited May 29, 2018]. Available from: https://www.henryschein.com/assets/Medical/1234679.pdf.

12. Chiannilkulchai N, Sutti N. Design and development of the colostomy bag model for person who has colostomy. Songklanagarind Journal of Nursing. 2017;37(3): 61-73.

13. Tracey MW. Design and development research: a model validation case. ETRD. 2009;57(4):553-71. doi: 10.1007/s11423-007-9075-0.

14. Martin JL, Norris BJ, Murphy E, Crowe JA. Medical device development: The challenge for ergonomics. Appl Ergon. 2008;39(3):271-83. doi: 10.1016/j.apergo.2007.10.002.

15. Lang AR, Martin JL, Sharples S, Crowe JA. The effect of design on the usability and real world effectiveness of medical devices: a case study with adolescent users. Appl Ergon. 2013;44(5):799-810. doi: 10.1016/j. apergo.2013.02.001.

16. World Health Organization. Medical device regulations: global overview and guiding principles. France: World Health Organization 2003.

17. Bergmann JHM, Noble A, Thompson M. Why is designing for developing countries more challenging? modelling the product design domain for medical devices. Procedia Manuf. 2015;3:5693-8. doi: 10.1016/j.promfg. 2015.07.792.

18. Castner J, Sullivan SS, Titus AH, Klingman KJ. Strengthening the role of nurses in medical device development. J Prof Nurs. 2016;32(4):300-5. doi: 10.1016/j.profnurs.2016.01.002.

19. Blandford A, Furniss D, Vincent C. Patient safety and interactive medical devices: realigning work as imagined and work as done. Clin Risk. 2014;27(5):107-10. doi: 10.1177/1356262214556550.

20. Wiechert K. Operating room setup and handling of surgical microscopes. In: Mayer HM, editor. Minimally invasive spine surgery: a surgical manual. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg; 2006. p. 23-5.

21. Damodaran O, Lee J, Lee G. Microscope in modern spinal surgery: advantages, ergonomics and limitations. ANZ Journal of Surgery. 2013;83(4):211-4. doi: 10.1111/ans.12044.

22. Park JY, Kim KH, Kuh SU, Chin DK, Kim KS, Cho YE. Spine surgeon’s kinematics during discectomy, part II: operating table height and visualization methods, including microscope. European Spine Journal. 2014;23(5):1067-76. doi: 10.1007/s00586-013-3125-6.

23. Knudson L. Management connections: Ensuring safe use of medical devices. AORN Journal. 2013;98(1):C1-C10. doi: 10.1016/S0001-2092(13)00606-6.

24. Bible JE, O’Neill KR, Crosby CG, Schoenecker JG, McGirt MJ, Devin CJ. Microscope sterility during spine surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2012;37(7):623-7. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3182286129.

25. Spruce L. Back to basics: sterile technique. AORN Journal. 2017;105(5):478-87. doi: 10.1016/j.aorn.2017. 02.014.

26. Garibaldi BT, Reimers M, Ernst N, Bova G, Nowakowski E, Bukowski J, et al. Validation of autoclave protocols for successful decontamination of category a medical waste generated from care of patients with serious communicable diseases. J Clin Microbiol. 2017;55(2):545-51. doi: 10.1128/JCM.02161-16.

27. Fairbanks RJ, Wears RL. Hazards with medical devices: the role of design. Ann Emerg Med. 2008;52(5):519-21. doi: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2008.07.008.

28. Bhumisirikul P, Chiannilkulchai N. Development of a RAMA gallbladder retrieval bag for improved patient safety: a nursing innovation. Pacific Rim Int J Nurs Res. 2018;22(3):264-77.