Cover story - advertising feature
Effective HLD of ultrasound probes
Nanosonics provide an insight into high-level disinfection of ultrasound probes, including the important factors that need to be taken into consideration to ensure effective results. In this article, they highlight the latest innovative technology that can help protect patients, staff and your equipment.
Effective high-level disinfection (HLD) of ultrasound probes is critical in protecting patients from infection risk. Through cross contamination of inadequately disinfected probes, patients can be exposed to the extensive list of pathogens implicated in healthcare- associated infections – HLD is an essential part of the fight against these. But when assessing the various methods of HLD appropriate for clinical settings, there are several considerations to take into account, to ensure the most effective results.
Automated efficacy To effectively protect patients from infection risk, HLD needs to be successful on every probe, on every occasion of disinfection. With automated HLD systems, sensor indicators verify a range of critical parameters, including time, temperature, disinfection dosage, and concentration – all of which affect the efficacy of the wider HLD process. Automation also removes the opportunity for human error – increasing standardisation of approach
across departments, hospitals, and wider healthcare settings. The AXREM, BMUS & ScoR Ultrasound Transducer Decontamination best practice summary for the United Kingdom also prioritises automated systems, continuing similar recommendations in various European guidelines:
“Disinfectant-impregnated wipes that contain an effective disinfectant are widely used but the assurance that all surfaces are in contact with liquid disinfectant for the required time is not as easy to achieve as a high-quality assurance standardised and automated process. Therefore, best practice is the use of an automated system.” Trophon® technology is an automated
HLD technology for transvaginal, transrectal and surface probes that meets mandatory microbial efficacy test requirements for both CE mark and FDA registration. Through an install base of over 35,000 trophon® units, across 30 countries, the technology protects more than 27 million patients every year, from the risk of infection caused by ultrasound probe cross contamination.
www.clinicalservicesjournal.com l April 2025 THE CLINICAL SERVICES JOURNAL
DECONTAMINATION & STERILISATION
Decontamination:
past, present and future Advancing education in endoscope decontamination
Size matters: quality control for surgical instruments
The complexities of HLD of damaged ultrasound probes Ultrasound probes are expensive, complex medical devices comprising multiple fragile – but important - components. Despite the best efforts of medical staff who use and process the probes, damage is common. In fact, a multicentre study carried out in the UK found that more than 1 in 3 probes were faulty, and more than 1 in 8 were not fit for clinical use.1
Damage can occur to any part of an
ultrasound probe, but the most commonly affected components include: l The lens Studies indicate that between 30-70% of probe faults involve the lens.1,2
The
most common form of lens damage is delamination, where the layers of material making up the transducer detach from one another. Also common are gouge marks or scratches on the lens, particularly when probes are used in needle-guided procedures.
l Cable and strain relief Cracks or breaks in the cable are common, with a Swedish study reporting that 30% of probe failures involved the cable. Damage to the cable or strain relief can result in connectivity issues or loss of imaging capability.1
l Internal elements Damage to the sensitive internal elements of an ultrasound probe commonly manifests as image dropout. Dropout was detected in 20% of ultrasound probes in a UK study.1 Damage might be caused by dropping or knocking the probe, general wear and tear, or – perhaps lesser known – due to incompatible reprocessing methods. Aggressive cleaning
58
www.clinicalservicesjournal.com I April 2025
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100
