In Vitro Study and In Vivo Application of a Reusable Double-Channel Sphincterotome

Background and Study Aims: Therapeutic endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) has been deemed to be a “cost-prohibitive” procedure, based upon the cumulative costs of one-time-use accessories and current reimbursement plans. One-time-use sphincterotomes comprise a significant component of that cost and, accordingly, we evaluated the disability and clinical usefulness of a recently introduced reusable double-channel sphincterotome.

Materials and Methods: We studied a reusable 6-Fr sphincterotome at baseline and following contamination with 10⁶ Bacillus stearothermophilus. Reprocessing included a unique 30-minute ultrasonic cleaning step in lieu of manual cleaning, followed by steam sterilization. Parameters evaluated included sphincterotome function, electrical integrity, and our ability to sterilize the devices for three in vitro trials. In vivo studies included patient demographics and outcomes, procedural findings, and success rates, and the mean number of times the sphincterotome was used, functional grading at time of use, and reasons for sphincterotome malfunction.

Results: Ten out of ten sphincterotomes maintained form, function, and electrical integrity in vitro, and all cultures were negative after sterilization. In the initial in vivo study, ten sphincterotomes were used in 50 patients (mean, 5 uses) with a 94 % success rate. Reasons for sphincterotome failure included leak or breakage of the accessory port in 70 %, wire fracture in 10 %, incorrect wire bow in 10 %, and clogged injection port in 10 %. Following reconfiguration of the insertion-port polymer, an additional ten sphincterotomes were used in 110 patients (mean, 11 uses). Mechanical failure occurred primarily at the wire-insertion port, resulting in progressive friction with reuse. There were neither electrical nor infectious complications associated with reuse.

Conclusions: A reusable double-channel sphincterotome is available which can theoretically be reprocessed and sterilized without the manual cleaning step of the reprocessing process. Contingent upon both provider and patient, multiple reuse can be anticipated, and contingent upon purchase price and reprocessing costs, the potential for procedural cost savings is significant.

References

• 1 Kim-Deobald J, Kozarek R A, Ball T J, et al. Prospective evaluation of costs of disposable accessories in diagnostic and therapeutic ERCP.  Gastrointest Endosc. 1993;  39 763-765
• 2 Axelrad A M, Al-Kawas F H, Kidwell J A, et al. Reimbursement for disposable accessories in diagnostic and therapeutic ERCP (abstract).  Gastrointest Endosc. 1995;  41 516
• 3 Walker R S, Vanagunas A D, Williams P, Chodash H B. Therapeutic ERCP: a cost-prohibitive procedure?.  Gastrointest Endosc. 1997;  46 143-146
• 4 Cohen J, Haber G B, Kortan P, et al. A prospective study of the repeated use of sterilized papillotomes and retrieval baskets for ERCP. Quality and cost analysis.  Gastrointest Endosc. 1997;  45 122-127
• 5 Kozarek R A, Sumida S E, Raltz S L, et al. In vitro evaluation of wire integrity and ability to reprocess single-use sphincterotomes.  Gastrointest Endosc. 1996;  45 117-121
• 6 Kozarek R A. Endoscope and accessory reprocessing.  Dig Endosc. 1999;  11 103-107
• 7 Kozarek R A, Raltz S L, Merriam L D, Sumida S E. Disposable versus reusable biopsy forceps: a prospective evaluation of costs.  Gastrointest Endosc. 1996;  43 10-13
• 8 Avalos-Bock S. Reusing single-use devices. A multi-hospital approach. ICST 1998, 8: 30-39
• 9 Priester R, Caplan A L. Legal and ethical issues in the practice of reuse.  Perspect Health Risk Manage. 1991;  11 31-37
• 10 Yang R, Naritoku W, Laine L. Prospective, randomized comparison of disposable and reusable biopsy forceps in gastrointestinal endoscopy.  Gastrointest Endosc. 1994;  40 671-674
• 11 O’Neal M. Environmental issues concerning sterile reprocessing, disposal practices, recycling.  AORN J. 1992;  55 606-608
• 12 Spach D H, Silverstein F E, Stamm W E. Transmission of infection by gastrointestinal endoscopy and bronchoscopy.  Ann Intern Med. 1993;  118 117-128
• 13 Lee R M, Kozarek R A, Sumida S E, Raltz S L. Risk of contamination of sterile biopsy forceps in disinfected endoscopes.  Gastrointest Endosc. 1998;  47 377-381
• 14 Roach S K, Kozarek R A, Raltz S L, Sumida S E. In vitro evaluation of integrity and sterilization of single-use argon beam plasma coagulation probes.  Am J Gastroenterol. 1999;  94 139-143
• 15 Kozarek R A. Coming clean on reuse of endoscopic equipment.  Gut. 1998;  42 155-156
• 16 O’Connor K W. Disposable versus reusable ERCP equipment: the tip of the regulatory iceberg.  Gastrointest Endosc. 1993;  36 846-867
• 17 Kozarek R A. ERCP Economics.  Gastrointest Endosc. 1999;  49 660-662
• 18 Kozarek R A, Raltz S L, Ball T J, et al. Reuse of disposable sphincterotomes for diagnostic and therapeutic ERCP: a one-year prospective study.  Gastrointest Endosc. 1999;  49 39-42
• 19 Lee R M, Kozarek R A, Raltz S L, et al. In vitro and in vivo evaluation of a reusable double channel sphincterotome.  Gastrointest Endosc. 1999;  49 477-482
• 20 Alta M J. Methodology of reprocessing reusable accessories.  Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am. 2000;  10 361-378
• 21 Martin M A, Reichelderfer M. APIC guidelines for infection prevention and control in flexible endoscopy.  Am J Infect Control. 1994;  22 19-38
• 22 Fraser V J, Zackerman G, Clouse R E, et al. A prospective randomized trial comparing manual and automated endoscope disinfection methods.  Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1993;  14 383-389
• 23 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy . Reprocessing of flexible gastrointestinal endoscopes.  Gastrointest Endosc. 1996;  43 540-545
• 24 Anonymous< . Reducing endoscopic contamination levels: are liquid disinfecting and sterilizing reprocessors the solution?.  ECRI. 1994;  23 212-253
• 25 Chu N S, McAlister D, Antonoplos P A. Natural bioburden levels detected on flexible gastrointestinal endoscopes after clinical use and manual recleaning.  Gastrointest Endosc. 1998;  48 137-142
• 26 Vesley D, Norlien K G, Nelson B, et al. Significant factors in the disinfection and sterilization of flexible endoscopes.  Am J Infect Control. 1992;  20 291-300
• 27 Freeman M L, Nelsen D B, Sherman S, et al. Same-day discharge after endoscopic biliary sphincterotomy: observations from a prospective multicenter complication study.  Gastrointest Endosc. 1999;  49 580-586
• 28 Ho K Y, Montes H, Sossenheimer M J, et al. Features which may predict hospital admission following outpatient therapeutic ERCP.  Gastrointest Endosc. 1999;  49 587-592
• 29 Raltz S L, Kozarek R A. Overview of the problem: reprocessing versus disposal of endoscopic accessories.  Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am. 2000;  10 329-340