PTJ
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


PHYS THER
Vol. 76, No. 12, December 1996, pp. 1340-1347

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when Rapid Responses are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Kalinowski, D.
Right arrow Articles by Sleeper, M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Kalinowski, D.
Right arrow Articles by Sleeper, M.

Article

A practical technique for disinfecting electrical stimulation apparatuses used in wound treatment

DP Kalinowski, MS Brogan, and MD Sleeper

Department of Natural Sciences, Daemen College, Amherst, NY 14226, USA. dkalinow@daemen.edu

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Electrical stimulation (ES) is used in wound management. Concerns, however, have been raised about the possible role ES might play in promoting or exacerbating wound infections, especially bacterial infections. The purpose of this study was to address these concerns by evaluating the efficacy of a method for disinfecting ES electrodes used in wound treatment. METHODS: Samples were taken from each wound treated in this study prior to and after ES and from sponges used with the ES electrodes prior to treatment, after treatment, and after 20 minutes of chemical disinfection. The presence and types of bacteria recovered were determined through standard microbiological techniques. RESULTS: In this study of 25 patient samples, large numbers (ie, thousands) of bacteria were recovered from the pretreatment and posttreatment wound samples and from the posttreatment sponges. Following disinfection, however, bacteria were absent from the sponges in 23 of the 25 patient samples. In the remaining 2 samples, no more than two bacterial colonies were recovered after disinfection. CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION: Immersion of the electrodes and sponges for 20 minutes in the disinfectant resulted in reduction of bacteria to safe, noninfective levels. Disinfection either completely eliminated all bacteria from the sponges (in 92% of the samples) or eliminated nearly all bacteria (in the remaining 8% of the samples), compared with predisinfection samples, which contained very large numbers of bacteria. These results demonstrate that the disinfection method used in this study is efficacious, and it appears to be cost-effective, practical, and safe for clinical use.





HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1996 by the American Physical Therapy Association.