A Shelf-Life Assessment of Sterilized Surgical Instruments Stored Under Controlled Conditions: A Comparative Study of a Single vs. Double Self-Sealing Pouch

(1) Background: postoperative surgical-site infections are a significant complication in small-animal surgical procedures, with detected rates ranging from 0.8% to 18.1%, depending on the type of surgery. The sterilization process of surgical instruments is a crucial factor in infection control, but...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inVeterinary sciences Vol. 12; no. 6; p. 564
Main Authors Cavalli, Stefano, Caterino, Chiara, Nocera, Francesca Paola, Pizzano, Francesca, Schena, Rossana, Aragosa, Federica, Arslan, Sinem, Della Valle, Giovanni, De Martino, Luisa, Fatone, Gerardo
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published Switzerland MDPI AG 09.06.2025
MDPI
Subjects
Bacteriology
Controlled conditions
Environmental conditions
Health aspects
Hospitals
Humidity
Identification
ISO standards
Medical equipment
Patient safety
Physiological apparatus
Quality management
Shelf life
sterile packaging
Sterility
Sterilization
sterilization process
Surgery
Surgical apparatus & instruments
surgical-site infections
Veterinary medicine
Italy
Germany
sterile packaging
surgical-site infections
sterilization process
Online AccessGet full text
ISSN2306-7381
2306-7381
DOI10.3390/vetsci12060564

Cover

Abstract (1) Background: postoperative surgical-site infections are a significant complication in small-animal surgical procedures, with detected rates ranging from 0.8% to 18.1%, depending on the type of surgery. The sterilization process of surgical instruments is a crucial factor in infection control, but the shelf life of surgical instruments and the best packaging method are not precisely defined due to the multiple variables that influence them. This study aimed to assess the shelf life of surgical instruments stored under controlled environmental conditions in a veterinary hospital and compare two packaging methods: using a self-sealing single pouch versus a self-sealing double pouch. (2) Methods: a sample of 400 non-sterile screws was divided into three groups: Group 1 (175 screws in single pouches), Group 2 (175 screws in double pouches), and Group 3 (50 non-sterile screws as a control group to verify the microbial culture efficiency). Microbiological tests were conducted at 1, 7, 15, 30, 60, 182, and 390 days post-sterilization. (3) Results: no bacterial growth was detected on screws packaged in single and double pouches up to 182 days. However, after 390 days, bacterial growth was observed in one screw packaged in a single pouch. In Group 3, only two screws turned out to be bacteriologically positive. (4) Conclusions: no statistical difference was found between the two groups; however, the detection of a single positive screw in the single-pouch group raised a potential clinical consideration, suggesting the need for further studies based on events and time.
AbstractList (1) Background: postoperative surgical-site infections are a significant complication in small-animal surgical procedures, with detected rates ranging from 0.8% to 18.1%, depending on the type of surgery. The sterilization process of surgical instruments is a crucial factor in infection control, but the shelf life of surgical instruments and the best packaging method are not precisely defined due to the multiple variables that influence them. This study aimed to assess the shelf life of surgical instruments stored under controlled environmental conditions in a veterinary hospital and compare two packaging methods: using a self-sealing single pouch versus a self-sealing double pouch. (2) Methods: a sample of 400 non-sterile screws was divided into three groups: Group 1 (175 screws in single pouches), Group 2 (175 screws in double pouches), and Group 3 (50 non-sterile screws as a control group to verify the microbial culture efficiency). Microbiological tests were conducted at 1, 7, 15, 30, 60, 182, and 390 days post-sterilization. (3) Results: no bacterial growth was detected on screws packaged in single and double pouches up to 182 days. However, after 390 days, bacterial growth was observed in one screw packaged in a single pouch. In Group 3, only two screws turned out to be bacteriologically positive. (4) Conclusions: no statistical difference was found between the two groups; however, the detection of a single positive screw in the single-pouch group raised a potential clinical consideration, suggesting the need for further studies based on events and time.
(1) Background: postoperative surgical-site infections are a significant complication in small-animal surgical procedures, with detected rates ranging from 0.8% to 18.1%, depending on the type of surgery. The sterilization process of surgical instruments is a crucial factor in infection control, but the shelf life of surgical instruments and the best packaging method are not precisely defined due to the multiple variables that influence them. This study aimed to assess the shelf life of surgical instruments stored under controlled environmental conditions in a veterinary hospital and compare two packaging methods: using a self-sealing single pouch versus a self-sealing double pouch. (2) Methods: a sample of 400 non-sterile screws was divided into three groups: Group 1 (175 screws in single pouches), Group 2 (175 screws in double pouches), and Group 3 (50 non-sterile screws as a control group to verify the microbial culture efficiency). Microbiological tests were conducted at 1, 7, 15, 30, 60, 182, and 390 days post-sterilization. (3) Results: no bacterial growth was detected on screws packaged in single and double pouches up to 182 days. However, after 390 days, bacterial growth was observed in one screw packaged in a single pouch. In Group 3, only two screws turned out to be bacteriologically positive. (4) Conclusions: no statistical difference was found between the two groups; however, the detection of a single positive screw in the single-pouch group raised a potential clinical consideration, suggesting the need for further studies based on events and time.(1) Background: postoperative surgical-site infections are a significant complication in small-animal surgical procedures, with detected rates ranging from 0.8% to 18.1%, depending on the type of surgery. The sterilization process of surgical instruments is a crucial factor in infection control, but the shelf life of surgical instruments and the best packaging method are not precisely defined due to the multiple variables that influence them. This study aimed to assess the shelf life of surgical instruments stored under controlled environmental conditions in a veterinary hospital and compare two packaging methods: using a self-sealing single pouch versus a self-sealing double pouch. (2) Methods: a sample of 400 non-sterile screws was divided into three groups: Group 1 (175 screws in single pouches), Group 2 (175 screws in double pouches), and Group 3 (50 non-sterile screws as a control group to verify the microbial culture efficiency). Microbiological tests were conducted at 1, 7, 15, 30, 60, 182, and 390 days post-sterilization. (3) Results: no bacterial growth was detected on screws packaged in single and double pouches up to 182 days. However, after 390 days, bacterial growth was observed in one screw packaged in a single pouch. In Group 3, only two screws turned out to be bacteriologically positive. (4) Conclusions: no statistical difference was found between the two groups; however, the detection of a single positive screw in the single-pouch group raised a potential clinical consideration, suggesting the need for further studies based on events and time.
Postoperative infections are a common concern in small-animal surgery, and the proper sterilization of surgical instruments is essential to prevent them. This study evaluated the shelf life of sterile surgical screws stored under controlled environmental conditions at the Veterinary Teaching Hospital of Naples. We compared two packaging methods, namely single and double self-sealing pouches, over 390 days. While no bacterial growth was detected in either group up to 182 days, after 390 days, one screw in the single-pouch group showed bacterial contamination. While current guidelines focus on event-related contamination, this outcome reveals a low-level, time-dependent threat to sterility. These findings emphasize the need for future time-based studies and further evaluation of packaging methods to ensure sterility.
Postoperative infections are a common concern in small-animal surgery, and the proper sterilization of surgical instruments is essential to prevent them. This study evaluated the shelf life of sterile surgical screws stored under controlled environmental conditions at the Veterinary Teaching Hospital of Naples. We compared two packaging methods, namely single and double self-sealing pouches, over 390 days. While no bacterial growth was detected in either group up to 182 days, after 390 days, one screw in the single-pouch group showed bacterial contamination. While current guidelines focus on event-related contamination, this outcome reveals a low-level, time-dependent threat to sterility. These findings emphasize the need for future time-based studies and further evaluation of packaging methods to ensure sterility. (1) Background: postoperative surgical-site infections are a significant complication in small-animal surgical procedures, with detected rates ranging from 0.8% to 18.1%, depending on the type of surgery. The sterilization process of surgical instruments is a crucial factor in infection control, but the shelf life of surgical instruments and the best packaging method are not precisely defined due to the multiple variables that influence them. This study aimed to assess the shelf life of surgical instruments stored under controlled environmental conditions in a veterinary hospital and compare two packaging methods: using a self-sealing single pouch versus a self-sealing double pouch. (2) Methods: a sample of 400 non-sterile screws was divided into three groups: Group 1 (175 screws in single pouches), Group 2 (175 screws in double pouches), and Group 3 (50 non-sterile screws as a control group to verify the microbial culture efficiency). Microbiological tests were conducted at 1, 7, 15, 30, 60, 182, and 390 days post-sterilization. (3) Results: no bacterial growth was detected on screws packaged in single and double pouches up to 182 days. However, after 390 days, bacterial growth was observed in one screw packaged in a single pouch. In Group 3, only two screws turned out to be bacteriologically positive. (4) Conclusions: no statistical difference was found between the two groups; however, the detection of a single positive screw in the single-pouch group raised a potential clinical consideration, suggesting the need for further studies based on events and time.
Audience Academic
Author Cavalli, Stefano
Arslan, Sinem
Fatone, Gerardo
Nocera, Francesca Paola
Aragosa, Federica
Caterino, Chiara
Pizzano, Francesca
Della Valle, Giovanni
De Martino, Luisa
Schena, Rossana
AuthorAffiliation Department of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Production, University of Naples Federico II, Via F. Delpino 1, 80137 Naples, Italy; stefano.cavalli@unina.it (S.C.); chiara.caterino@unina.it (C.C.); francesca.pizzano@unina.it (F.P.); rossana.schena@unina.it (R.S.); federica.aragosa@unina.it (F.A.); sinem.arslan@unina.it (S.A.); giovanni.dellavalle@unina.it (G.D.V.); luisa.demartino@unina.it (L.D.M.); fatone@unina.it (G.F.)
AuthorAffiliation_xml – name: Department of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Production, University of Naples Federico II, Via F. Delpino 1, 80137 Naples, Italy; stefano.cavalli@unina.it (S.C.); chiara.caterino@unina.it (C.C.); francesca.pizzano@unina.it (F.P.); rossana.schena@unina.it (R.S.); federica.aragosa@unina.it (F.A.); sinem.arslan@unina.it (S.A.); giovanni.dellavalle@unina.it (G.D.V.); luisa.demartino@unina.it (L.D.M.); fatone@unina.it (G.F.)
Author_xml – sequence: 1
  givenname: Stefano
  orcidid: 0009-0004-0527-9829
  surname: Cavalli
  fullname: Cavalli, Stefano
– sequence: 2
  givenname: Chiara
  orcidid: 0000-0002-9753-5452
  surname: Caterino
  fullname: Caterino, Chiara
– sequence: 3
  givenname: Francesca Paola
  orcidid: 0000-0003-1789-7603
  surname: Nocera
  fullname: Nocera, Francesca Paola
– sequence: 4
  givenname: Francesca
  surname: Pizzano
  fullname: Pizzano, Francesca
– sequence: 5
  givenname: Rossana
  surname: Schena
  fullname: Schena, Rossana
– sequence: 6
  givenname: Federica
  orcidid: 0000-0002-8764-0101
  surname: Aragosa
  fullname: Aragosa, Federica
– sequence: 7
  givenname: Sinem
  surname: Arslan
  fullname: Arslan, Sinem
– sequence: 8
  givenname: Giovanni
  orcidid: 0000-0002-5424-6335
  surname: Della Valle
  fullname: Della Valle, Giovanni
– sequence: 9
  givenname: Luisa
  orcidid: 0000-0001-9730-2926
  surname: De Martino
  fullname: De Martino, Luisa
– sequence: 10
  givenname: Gerardo
  orcidid: 0000-0003-2578-7420
  surname: Fatone
  fullname: Fatone, Gerardo
BackLink https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/40559801$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed
BookMark eNptkk1vEzEQhleoiJbSK0dkiQuXBO_a3g8uKAoFIkUCaenZ8trjxJHXDvZupPJb-LH1ktI2CPng8cw7z3hG8zI7c95Blr3O8ZyQBr8_wBClyQtcYlbSZ9lFQXA5q0idnz2xz7OrGHcY45zQglX5i-ycYsaaGucX2e8Fardg9WxtNKBFjBBjD25AXqN2gGCs-QUKtWPYGCksWrk4hHFSxBT3IcVunIKAlt4NwVubHMlUZjDexQ9okV79XgQxmAOkjFHdTmiBWuM2FtAhztEnP3bJbKdvtCBsiqDvfpTbV9lzLWyEq_v7Mrv5fP1j-XW2_vZltVysZ5LhZphRpSnRrMtVVzNRCC10p2ugnS4JpkJjxRrQVHWFFqKkIAVrVFcBFVRRKQi5zFZHrvJix_fB9CLcci8M_-PwYcNFGIy0wKXsNECpCegqFVC1Vk2hqkoJDU0hJ9bHI2s_dj0omSYVhD2Bnkac2fKNP_C8yJuKlVUivLsnBP9zhDjw3kQJ1goHfoycFAVpCCvKMknf_iPd-TG4NKujirKyIY-qjUgdGKd9KiwnKF_UlNWsqTBLqvl_VOko6I1Mi6dN8p8kvHna6UOLf5frkSiDjzGAfpDkmE8LzE8XmNwBsTbnDg
Cites_doi 10.1016/S1015-9584(09)60303-1
10.1002/aorn.12813
10.3390/ijerph19074310
10.3390/diseases10040081
10.1128/am.26.1.59-62.1973
10.1016/j.ajic.2012.09.030
10.1111/j.1532-950X.2004.04076.x
10.1002/aorn.14101
10.4103/ejd.ejd_351_17
10.1038/s41598-022-24282-7
10.1111/j.1532-950X.2010.00763.x
10.1016/j.injury.2018.09.006
10.1016/0030-4220(91)90004-V
10.1016/j.aorn.2014.02.014
10.1016/S0001-2092(07)68313-6
10.1016/j.ajic.2004.11.010
10.1017/S0195941700066261
10.1016/j.cvsm.2011.05.010
10.2345/0899-8205-12.1.76
10.3390/antibiotics13070623
ContentType Journal Article
Copyright COPYRIGHT 2025 MDPI AG
2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.
2025 by the authors. 2025
Copyright_xml – notice: COPYRIGHT 2025 MDPI AG
– notice: 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.
– notice: 2025 by the authors. 2025
DBID AAYXX
CITATION
NPM
8FE
8FH
ABUWG
AFKRA
AZQEC
BBNVY
BENPR
BHPHI
CCPQU
DWQXO
GNUQQ
HCIFZ
LK8
M7P
PHGZM
PHGZT
PIMPY
PKEHL
PQEST
PQGLB
PQQKQ
PQUKI
PRINS
7X8
5PM
DOA
DOI 10.3390/vetsci12060564
DatabaseName CrossRef
PubMed
ProQuest SciTech Collection
ProQuest Natural Science Collection
ProQuest Central (Alumni)
ProQuest Central UK/Ireland
ProQuest Central Essentials - QC
Biological Science Collection
ProQuest Central
Natural Science Collection
ProQuest One
ProQuest Central Korea
ProQuest Central Student
SciTech Premium Collection
Biological Sciences
Biological Science Database (ProQuest)
ProQuest Central Premium
ProQuest One Academic (New)
Publicly Available Content Database (ProQuest)
ProQuest One Academic Middle East (New)
ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)
ProQuest One Applied & Life Sciences
ProQuest One Academic
ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition
ProQuest Central China
MEDLINE - Academic
PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)
DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals
DatabaseTitle CrossRef
PubMed
Publicly Available Content Database
ProQuest Central Student
ProQuest One Academic Middle East (New)
ProQuest Biological Science Collection
ProQuest Central Essentials
ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition
ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)
SciTech Premium Collection
ProQuest One Community College
ProQuest Natural Science Collection
Biological Science Database
ProQuest SciTech Collection
ProQuest Central China
ProQuest Central
ProQuest One Applied & Life Sciences
ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition
Natural Science Collection
ProQuest Central Korea
Biological Science Collection
ProQuest Central (New)
ProQuest One Academic
ProQuest One Academic (New)
MEDLINE - Academic
DatabaseTitleList Publicly Available Content Database
MEDLINE - Academic

PubMed


CrossRef
Database_xml – sequence: 1
  dbid: DOA
  name: DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals
  url: https://www.doaj.org/
  sourceTypes: Open Website
– sequence: 2
  dbid: NPM
  name: PubMed
  url: https://proxy.k.utb.cz/login?url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed
  sourceTypes: Index Database
– sequence: 3
  dbid: BENPR
  name: ProQuest Central
  url: http://www.proquest.com/pqcentral?accountid=15518
  sourceTypes: Aggregation Database
DeliveryMethod fulltext_linktorsrc
Discipline Veterinary Medicine
EISSN 2306-7381
ExternalDocumentID oai_doaj_org_article_ccbfee6f3ef74bfd8fd92d77dafe92c3
PMC12197567
A845859705
40559801
10_3390_vetsci12060564
Genre Journal Article
GeographicLocations Italy
Germany
GeographicLocations_xml – name: Italy
– name: Germany
GroupedDBID 5VS
8FE
8FH
AADQD
AAFWJ
AAHBH
AAYXX
ADBBV
AFKRA
AFPKN
AFZYC
ALMA_UNASSIGNED_HOLDINGS
AOIJS
BBNVY
BCNDV
BENPR
BHPHI
CCPQU
CITATION
ECGQY
EYRJQ
GROUPED_DOAJ
HCIFZ
HYE
IAO
ITC
KQ8
LK8
M7P
MODMG
M~E
OK1
OZF
PGMZT
PHGZM
PHGZT
PIMPY
PROAC
RPM
NPM
ABUWG
AZQEC
DWQXO
GNUQQ
PKEHL
PQEST
PQGLB
PQQKQ
PQUKI
PRINS
7X8
PUEGO
5PM
ID FETCH-LOGICAL-c509t-4df43f5b1db85a2afafbf8e4bf6304af0d59ef4db2faa64eca59db7e4a4d4ca33
IEDL.DBID BENPR
ISSN 2306-7381
IngestDate Wed Aug 27 00:55:06 EDT 2025
Thu Aug 21 18:34:06 EDT 2025
Fri Sep 05 15:49:10 EDT 2025
Fri Jul 25 09:12:50 EDT 2025
Thu Jul 03 03:08:28 EDT 2025
Tue Jul 01 05:42:16 EDT 2025
Sat Jun 28 01:34:14 EDT 2025
Thu Jul 03 08:26:44 EDT 2025
IsDoiOpenAccess true
IsOpenAccess true
IsPeerReviewed true
IsScholarly true
Issue 6
Keywords sterile packaging
surgical-site infections
sterilization process
Language English
License https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
LinkModel DirectLink
MergedId FETCHMERGED-LOGICAL-c509t-4df43f5b1db85a2afafbf8e4bf6304af0d59ef4db2faa64eca59db7e4a4d4ca33
Notes ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 14
content type line 23
ORCID 0000-0001-9730-2926
0009-0004-0527-9829
0000-0002-5424-6335
0000-0002-9753-5452
0000-0003-1789-7603
0000-0002-8764-0101
0000-0003-2578-7420
OpenAccessLink https://www.proquest.com/docview/3223945693?pq-origsite=%requestingapplication%&accountid=15518
PMID 40559801
PQID 3223945693
PQPubID 2059540
ParticipantIDs doaj_primary_oai_doaj_org_article_ccbfee6f3ef74bfd8fd92d77dafe92c3
pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_12197567
proquest_miscellaneous_3223935266
proquest_journals_3223945693
gale_infotracmisc_A845859705
gale_infotracacademiconefile_A845859705
pubmed_primary_40559801
crossref_primary_10_3390_vetsci12060564
PublicationCentury 2000
PublicationDate 2025-06-09
PublicationDateYYYYMMDD 2025-06-09
PublicationDate_xml – month: 06
  year: 2025
  text: 2025-06-09
  day: 09
PublicationDecade 2020
PublicationPlace Switzerland
PublicationPlace_xml – name: Switzerland
– name: Basel
PublicationTitle Veterinary sciences
PublicationTitleAlternate Vet Sci
PublicationYear 2025
Publisher MDPI AG
MDPI
Publisher_xml – name: MDPI AG
– name: MDPI
References Bhumisirikul (ref_15) 2003; 26
Vickery (ref_21) 2018; 49
Nelson (ref_3) 2011; 41
Croke (ref_8) 2019; 110
ref_13
ref_12
Standard (ref_17) 1973; 26
ref_23
ref_11
Eugster (ref_1) 2004; 33
ref_10
Klapes (ref_19) 1987; 8
Kyle (ref_5) 2024; 119
Morton (ref_14) 2014; 99
Sheffield (ref_22) 2012; 46
Webster (ref_16) 2005; 33
ref_9
Butt (ref_18) 1991; 72
ref_7
Cook (ref_2) 2010; 39
Seavey (ref_4) 2013; 41
ref_6
Thaweboon (ref_20) 2018; 12
References_xml – volume: 26
  start-page: 202
  year: 2003
  ident: ref_15
  article-title: Long-term storage of small surgical instruments in autoclaved packages
  publication-title: Asian J. Surg.
  doi: 10.1016/S1015-9584(09)60303-1
– ident: ref_6
– volume: 110
  start-page: P8
  year: 2019
  ident: ref_8
  article-title: Guideline for sterilization packaging systems
  publication-title: AORN J.
  doi: 10.1002/aorn.12813
– ident: ref_9
– ident: ref_12
  doi: 10.3390/ijerph19074310
– ident: ref_10
  doi: 10.3390/diseases10040081
– volume: 26
  start-page: 59
  year: 1973
  ident: ref_17
  article-title: Microbial Penetration Through Three Types of Double Wrappers for Sterile Packs
  publication-title: Appl. Microbiol.
  doi: 10.1128/am.26.1.59-62.1973
– volume: 41
  start-page: S111
  year: 2013
  ident: ref_4
  article-title: High-level disinfection, sterilization, and antisepsis: Current issues in reprocessing medical and surgical instruments
  publication-title: Am. J. Infect. Control
  doi: 10.1016/j.ajic.2012.09.030
– volume: 33
  start-page: 542
  year: 2004
  ident: ref_1
  article-title: A prospective study of postoperative surgical site infections in dogs and cats
  publication-title: Vet. Surg.
  doi: 10.1111/j.1532-950X.2004.04076.x
– volume: 119
  start-page: 226
  year: 2024
  ident: ref_5
  article-title: Sustainability in the Perioperative Practice Setting
  publication-title: AORN J.
  doi: 10.1002/aorn.14101
– volume: 12
  start-page: 417
  year: 2018
  ident: ref_20
  article-title: Effects of resterilization and storage time on sterility of paper/plastic pouches
  publication-title: Eur. J. Dent.
  doi: 10.4103/ejd.ejd_351_17
– ident: ref_23
  doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-24282-7
– volume: 39
  start-page: 905
  year: 2010
  ident: ref_2
  article-title: Proposed definitions and criteria for reporting time frame, outcome, and complications for clinical orthopedic studies in veterinary medicine
  publication-title: Vet. Surg.
  doi: 10.1111/j.1532-950X.2010.00763.x
– volume: 49
  start-page: 2005
  year: 2018
  ident: ref_21
  article-title: Reprocessing safety issues associated with complex-design orthopaedic loaned surgical instruments and implants
  publication-title: Injury
  doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2018.09.006
– volume: 72
  start-page: 650
  year: 1991
  ident: ref_18
  article-title: Evaluation of the shelf life of sterile instrument packs
  publication-title: Oral Surg. Oral Med. Oral Pathol.
  doi: 10.1016/0030-4220(91)90004-V
– ident: ref_13
– volume: 99
  start-page: 495
  year: 2014
  ident: ref_14
  article-title: Implementing AORN Recommended Practices for Selection and Use of Packaging Systems for Sterilization
  publication-title: AORN J.
  doi: 10.1016/j.aorn.2014.02.014
– ident: ref_7
  doi: 10.1016/S0001-2092(07)68313-6
– volume: 33
  start-page: 348
  year: 2005
  ident: ref_16
  article-title: Barrier properties and cost implications of a single versus a double wrap for storing sterile instrument packs
  publication-title: Am. J. Infect. Control
  doi: 10.1016/j.ajic.2004.11.010
– volume: 8
  start-page: 289
  year: 1987
  ident: ref_19
  article-title: Effect of long-term storage on sterile status of devices in surgical packs
  publication-title: Infect. Control
  doi: 10.1017/S0195941700066261
– volume: 41
  start-page: 1041
  year: 2011
  ident: ref_3
  article-title: Surgical site infections in small animal surgery
  publication-title: Vet. Clin. N. Am. Small Anim. Pract.
  doi: 10.1016/j.cvsm.2011.05.010
– volume: 46
  start-page: 76
  year: 2012
  ident: ref_22
  article-title: Responsibilities for effective medical device reprocessing procedures and instructions
  publication-title: Biomed. Instrum. Technol.
  doi: 10.2345/0899-8205-12.1.76
– ident: ref_11
  doi: 10.3390/antibiotics13070623
SSID ssj0001342571
Score 2.2977772
Snippet (1) Background: postoperative surgical-site infections are a significant complication in small-animal surgical procedures, with detected rates ranging from...
Postoperative infections are a common concern in small-animal surgery, and the proper sterilization of surgical instruments is essential to prevent them. This...
SourceID doaj
pubmedcentral
proquest
gale
pubmed
crossref
SourceType Open Website
Open Access Repository
Aggregation Database
Index Database
StartPage 564
SubjectTerms Bacteriology
Controlled conditions
Environmental conditions
Health aspects
Hospitals
Humidity
Identification
ISO standards
Medical equipment
Patient safety
Physiological apparatus
Quality management
Shelf life
sterile packaging
Sterility
Sterilization
sterilization process
Surgery
Surgical apparatus & instruments
surgical-site infections
Veterinary medicine
SummonAdditionalLinks – databaseName: DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals
  dbid: DOA
  link: http://utb.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwrV1Lb9QwELZQT1wQlFegICMhcQrNw7FjbmFFVRBFSKGot8iPsXalVVK1u5Xgt_BjmXHSZSMOXLhFGSdxMuN5ODPfMPYaNb7KK2tSV3uRChlcampwqQT6jWWQEiu8z77I03Px6aK62Gv1RTlhIzzw-OGOnbMBQIYSghI2-Dp4XXilvAmgCxdxPjOd7QVTcXelJFnMR5TGEuP64xvYoE3Jiwz9dylmViiC9f-tkvds0jxfcs8Andxn9ybPkTfjjB-wO9AfssPvlM4Sa2r52fSb_CH71fB2CeuQfl4F4M0OfJMPgbc0fr36CZ6326uo9_jHCCMbi92QPlwhLfZD4osxkX2NJ_DQj-ld73jDF39AwzmlIv6gWxveoiFcA7-5fsvRM7d42NI0WvRGkcK_Dlu3fMTOTz58W5ymUxuG1KE3sUmFD6IMlc29rStTmGCCDTUgM2SZCRMyX2kIwtsiGCMFOFNpAm0WRnjhTFk-Zgf90MNTxo2yQhRQZ6UKqDmExWCvzpSiildQTiXszS1bussRbaPDKIUY2M0ZmLD3xLXdKELJjidQdrpJdrp_yQ4-jnje0VpGxjozlSTgZAkVq2tqgdGUVlmVsKPZSFyDbk6-lZpu0gHXHarKUqN_qvE5r3ZkupLy2noYttMYalEgE_ZkFLLdK6ErXWl0IBJWz8Rv9s5zSr9aRoTwHO2QqqR69j--0nN2t6Cmx7T1pI_YAQokvEBPbGNfxkX3G9d2Oj8
  priority: 102
  providerName: Directory of Open Access Journals
Title A Shelf-Life Assessment of Sterilized Surgical Instruments Stored Under Controlled Conditions: A Comparative Study of a Single vs. Double Self-Sealing Pouch
URI https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/40559801
https://www.proquest.com/docview/3223945693
https://www.proquest.com/docview/3223935266
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/PMC12197567
https://doaj.org/article/ccbfee6f3ef74bfd8fd92d77dafe92c3
Volume 12
hasFullText 1
inHoldings 1
isFullTextHit
isPrint
link http://utb.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwfV3da9RAEF_q9cUX0foVW8sKgk-xuewmmxRE0qOlij2KsdK3sJ_ewZHU611B_xb_WGc2yV2D4FvY2SS7zOzM7O7Mbwh5CxpfjBMlQ50ZHvLU6VBmVoepxWssCRSf4X0xTc-v-Ofr5HqHTPtcGAyr7HWiV9Sm0XhGfgSCx3Kw9jn7ePMzxKpReLval9CQXWkF88FDjD0gu6CSk2hEdk9Op5dft6cuDGV03KI3MtjvH93ZFdiacRyBX5_ygXXyIP7_qup7tmoYR3nPMJ09Jo86j5IWrQg8ITu23iN73zHMxefa0ovu-vwp-VPQcmYXLvwyd5YWG1BO2jhaYv_F_Lc1tFwvvT6knzy8rE-CA3qzBJqvk0QnbYD7Ahrg0bRhX8e0oJMtmDjFEMVf-GlJSzCQC0vvbt9T8NgVPJY4jBK8VKDQy2atZ8_I1dnpt8l52JVnCDV4GauQG8eZS9TYqCyRsXTSKZdZrlzKIi5dZJLcOm5U7KRMudUyyRHMmUtuuJaMPSejuqntS0KlUJzHNouYcKBRuIJNYBYJgZmwVmgRkHc9W6qbFoWjgt0LMrAaMjAgJ8i1TS9Ez_YNzfJH1S3GSmvlrE0ds07AcE3mTB4bIYx0No81g98hzytc48BYLbtUBRgsomVVRcZhl5WLKAnIwaAnrE09JPdSU3W64bbaSnJA3mzI-CbGu9W2WXd9sHRBGpAXrZBtpgQudpKDYxGQbCB-gzkPKfV85pHDx2CfRJKKV_8f1z55GGOZYzxsyg_ICETNvgbfa6UOuwV16M8u_gLoITYD
linkProvider ProQuest
linkToHtml http://utb.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwtR3LbtNAcFW1B7ggKC9DgUUCcTJ17LXXRqpQGlolNIkq3KLezD5JpCgueRSVb-Fb-DZm1k5SC4lbb5Znba8179l5EPIGJD5vxVL4KtXMZ4lVvkiN8hODx1gCIK7CezBMuufs80V8sUX-rGphMK1yJROdoNalwhj5PhBelIG2z6KPlz98nBqFp6urERqiHq2gD1yLsbqw48Rc_wQXbn7Q-wT4fhuGx0dnna5fTxnwFSjLhc-0ZZGNZUvLNBahsMJKmxombQKuvrCBjjNjmZahFSJhRok4w57ETDDNlMCAKKiAHYYBlG2yc3g0PP2yifJEyBOtqltkFGXB_pVZgG5rhQH4EQlraEM3NOBf1XBDNzbzNm8owuP75F5twdJ2RXIPyJaZ7pLdr5hW42p76aA-rn9IfrdpPjIT6_fH1tD2ugkoLS3Ncf1k_Mtomi9nTv7Snmtn64ruAF7OAObmMtFOlVA_gRtwqas0sw-0TTub5uUUUyKv8dWC5qCQJ4Zezd9T8BAkXOa4jRysYoDQ03KpRo_I-a0g6jHZnpZT85RQwSVjoUmDiFuQYEyC05kGnGPlreGKe-TdCi3FZdX1owBvCRFYNBHokUPE2noVdut2N8rZ96Jm_kIpaY1JbGQsh-3q1Oos1JxrYU0Wqgg-hzgvUKYAYpWoSyNgs9idq2inDLy6jAexR_YaK0EWqCZ4RTVFLYvmxYZzPPJ6DcYnMb9uasplvQZHJSQeeVIR2fqXwKSPMzBkPJI2yK_xz03IdDxyncpboA95nPBn_9_XK3KnezboF_3e8OQ5uRviiGUMdGV7ZBvIzrwAu28hX9bMRcm32-bnvwd7dic
linkToPdf http://utb.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwtV1bb9MwFLamTUK8IBi3wAAjgXgKTRMnTpAm1HWrVrZVFWFob8HxhVaqmtHL0Pgt_CJ-Fec4brsIibe9RTlO4uhcPh_7XAh5Axaft-NS-DJVzGeJkb5ItfQTjcdYAig2w_tskByfs08X8cUW-bPKhcGwypVNtIZaVRL3yFsgeFEGaJ9FLePCIoaHvY-XP3zsIIUnrat2GsK1WVD7ttyYS_I40dc_wZ2b7_cPgfdvw7B39KV77LuOA74E4Fz4TBkWmbhsqzKNRSiMMKVJNStNAm6_MIGKM22YKkMjRMK0FHGG9YmZYIpJgZujAAc7HFAfHMGdg6PB8PNmxydC_WjXlSOjKAtaV3oBONcOA_ApEtZARttA4F-YuIGTzRjOG6DYu0_uudUs7dTi94Bs6eku2f2KITY2z5eeuaP7h-R3h-YjPTH-6dho2lkXBKWVoTmOn4x_aUXz5czaYtq3pW1tAh7QqxnQbI8m2q2D6ydwAy5VHXL2gXZod1PInGJ45DW-WtAcwHmi6dX8PQVvoYTLHKeRwwoZKHRYLeXoETm_FUY9JtvTaqqfEip4yVio0yDiBqwZK8EBTQPOMQtXc8k98m7FluKyrgBSgOeEDCyaDPTIAXJtPQord9sb1ex74QxBIWVptE5MpA2H6arUqCxUnCthdBbKCD6HPC_QvgBjpXBpEjBZrNRVdFIGHl7Gg9gje42RYBdkk7ySmsLZpXmx0SKPvF6T8UmMtZvqaunGYNuExCNPaiFb_xIs7-MMFjUeSRvi1_jnJmU6Htmq5W3ARh4n_Nn_5_WK3AG9Lk77g5Pn5G6I3ZZxzyvbI9sgdfoFLAEX5UunW5R8u211_gswIHpr
openUrl ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info%3Aofi%2Fenc%3AUTF-8&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fsummon.serialssolutions.com&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=A+Shelf-Life+Assessment+of+Sterilized+Surgical+Instruments+Stored+Under+Controlled+Conditions%3A+A+Comparative+Study+of+a+Single+vs.+Double+Self-Sealing+Pouch&rft.jtitle=Veterinary+sciences&rft.au=Cavalli+Stefano&rft.au=Caterino+Chiara&rft.au=Nocera%2C+Francesca+Paola&rft.au=Pizzano+Francesca&rft.date=2025-06-09&rft.pub=MDPI+AG&rft.eissn=2306-7381&rft.volume=12&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=564&rft_id=info:doi/10.3390%2Fvetsci12060564&rft.externalDBID=HAS_PDF_LINK
thumbnail_l http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/lc.gif&issn=2306-7381&client=summon
thumbnail_m http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/mc.gif&issn=2306-7381&client=summon
thumbnail_s http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/sc.gif&issn=2306-7381&client=summon