Download PDF
CC BY 4.0 · Journal of Clinical Interventional Radiology ISVIR 2024; 08(03): 144-148
DOI: 10.1055/s-0044-1786995
Original Article

Addressing Glass Contamination in Radiology: What Can We Do to Minimize Its Impact?

Seran Perera 
1   Faculty of Health and Medical Science, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia
,
Shanesh Kumar
2   Department of Radiology, Jones Radiology, Adelaide, Australia
3   Department of Radiology, Royal Adelaide Hospital, Adelaide, Australia
,
Steven Zadow
2   Department of Radiology, Jones Radiology, Adelaide, Australia
4   Department of Radiology, Flinders Medical Centre, Adelaide, Australia
,
WanYin Lim
2   Department of Radiology, Jones Radiology, Adelaide, Australia
3   Department of Radiology, Royal Adelaide Hospital, Adelaide, Australia
› Author Affiliations Funding None.
› Further Information
Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Introduction There is a risk of glass contamination with the use of single-dose glass ampoules. Complications of injection include infection and granuloma formation and this is widely described in anesthetic literature. To date, there is no data on the effect of different ampoule opening methods on the degree of glass contamination.

Purpose This article explores different ampoule opening methods and determines if any method is superior to the others with respect to glass contamination frequency. This article also increases awareness of glass contamination and its potential complications in the radiology community.

Methods A controlled trial was undertaken with 15 glass ampoules filled with normal saline, divided into three groups. The ampoules in each of the group were opened via each method: freehand, ampoule breaker, and ampoule opener. The solution was aspirated with an 18-gauge drawing-up needle, which was centrifuged and decantered to be placed onto slides and inspected under light microscopy to assess the glass contaminants.

Results Between each cohort, the freehand opening provided the least number of glass particles with 42, followed by the ampoule breaker and snapper. The greatest size of glass contamination was seen from the ampoule snapper at 300 μm, while the lowest average particle size was seen from the ampoule breaker.

Conclusion The study confirmed presence of glass contamination in all three methods. Freehand opening minimized the number of particulates, while the ampoule breaker minimized the average particulate size. The ampoule snapper produced larger glass particulates in the trials and was deemed the least effective method.

Keywords

glass ampoules - glass contaminates - ampoule breaker

Ethical approval

Study is exempt from ethics review as there is no patient involvement.


Authors' Contributions

S.P.: Literature search, data analysis, statistical analysis, manuscript preparation, and manuscript editing.


S.K.: Concepts, design, definitions of intellectual content, experimental studies, and data acquisition.


S.Z.: Definitions of intellectual content and manuscript review.


W.Y.L.: Concepts, design, definitions of intellectual content, literature search, experimental studies, and data acquisition.




Publication History

Article published online:
08 July 2024

© 2024. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, permitting unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction so long as the original work is properly cited. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd.
A-12, 2nd Floor, Sector 2, Noida-201301 UP, India