dc.creatorCoelho, Roberto Pinto
dc.creatorGarcia, Tatiana Vannucci
dc.creatorPaula, Jayter Silva
dc.creatorVelasco e Cruz, Antonio Augusto
dc.creatorRocha, Eduardo Melani
dc.creatorMoraes Figueiredo, Luiz Tadeu
dc.creatorVeronese Rodrigues, Maria Lourdes
dc.date.accessioned2013-10-29T15:03:42Z
dc.date.accessioned2018-07-04T16:08:12Z
dc.date.available2013-10-29T15:03:42Z
dc.date.available2018-07-04T16:08:12Z
dc.date.created2013-10-29T15:03:42Z
dc.date.issued2012
dc.identifierARQUIVOS BRASILEIROS DE OFTALMOLOGIA, SAO PAULO, v. 75, n. 3, supl., Part 3, pp. 174-177, MAY-JUN, 2012
dc.identifier0004-2749
dc.identifierhttp://www.producao.usp.br/handle/BDPI/36490
dc.identifier10.1590/S0004-27492012000300005
dc.identifierhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S0004-27492012000300005
dc.identifier.urihttp://repositorioslatinoamericanos.uchile.cl/handle/2250/1631900
dc.description.abstractPurpose: To determine the incidence of Piry virus contamination among surgical instruments used with disposable accessories for phacoemulsification during sequential surgeries. Methods: An experimental model was created with 4 pigs' eyes that were contaminated with Piry virus and 4 pigs' eyes that were not contaminated. Phacoemulsification was performed on the eyes, alternating between the contaminated and non-contaminated eyes. From one surgery to another, the operating fields, gloves, scalpel, tweezers, needles, syringes, tips and bag collector from the phacoemulsification machine were exchanged; only the hand piece and the irrigation and aspiration systems were maintained. Results: In the collector bag, three samples from the contaminated eyes (3/4) were positive, and two samples from the non-contaminated (2/4) eyes were also positive; at the tip, one sample from the contaminated eyes (1/4) and two samples of the noncontaminated eyes (2/4) yielded positive results. In the irrigation system, one sample from a non-contaminated eye (1/4) was positive, and in the aspiration system, two samples from contaminated eyes (2/4) and two samples from non-contaminated eyes (2/4) were positive. In the gloves, the samples were positive in two samples from the non-contaminated eyes (2/4) and in two samples from the contaminated eyes (2/4). In the scalpel samples, three contaminated eyes (3/4) and none of the non-contaminated eyes (0/4) were positive; finally, two samples from the anterior chambers of the non-contaminated eyes gathered after surgery were positive. Conclusions: In two non-contaminated eyes, the presence of genetic material was detected after phacoemulsification surgery, demonstrating that the transmission of the genetic material of the Piry virus occurred at some point during the surgery on these non-contaminated eyes when the hand piece and irrigation and aspiration systems were reused between surgeries.
dc.languageeng
dc.publisherCONSEL BRASIL OFTALMOLOGIA
dc.publisherSAO PAULO
dc.relationARQUIVOS BRASILEIROS DE OFTALMOLOGIA
dc.rightsCopyright CONSEL BRASIL OFTALMOLOGIA
dc.rightsopenAccess
dc.subjectPHACOEMULSIFICATION
dc.subjectEQUIPMENT REUSE
dc.subjectARBOVIRUSES
dc.subjectEQUIPMENT CONTAMINATION
dc.titleViral contamination during sequential phacoemulsification surgeries in an experimental model
dc.typeArtículos de revistas


Este ítem pertenece a la siguiente institución