Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 22, 2025

Determining Viral Disinfection Efficacy of Hot Water Laundering
Published on: June 21, 2022
The Effectiveness of Ultraviolet Smart D60 in Reducing Contamination of Flexible Fiberoptic Laryngoscopes
Uche C Ezeh1, Efstratios Achlatis1, Tyler Crosby1
1Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, NYU Langone Health, New York, New York, USA.
Objective:
To compare the effectiveness of disinfection protocols utilizing a ultraviolet (UV) Smart D60 light system with Impelux™ technology with a standard Cidex ortho-phthalaldehyde (OPA) disinfection protocol for cleaning flexible fiberoptic laryngoscopes (FFLs).
Methods:
Two hundred FFLs were tested for bacterial contamination after routine use, and another 200 FFLs were tested after disinfection with one of four methods: enzymatic detergent plus Cidex OPA (standard), enzymatic detergent plus UV Smart D60, microfiber cloth plus UV Smart D60, and nonsterile wipe plus UV Smart D60. Pre- and post-disinfection microbial burden levels and positive culture rates were compared using Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA and Fisher's two-sided exact, respectively.
Results:
After routine use, approximately 56% (112/200) of FFLs were contaminated, with an average contamination level of 9,973.7 ± 70,136.3 CFU/mL. The standard reprocessing method showed no positive cultures. The enzymatic plus UV, microfiber plus UV, and nonsterile wipe plus UV methods yielded contamination rates of 4% (2/50), 6% (3/50), and 12% (6/50), respectively, with no significant differences among the treatment groups (p > 0.05). The pre-disinfection microbial burden levels decreased significantly after each disinfection technique (p < 0.001). The average microbial burden recovered after enzymatic plus UV, microfiber plus UV, and nonsterile wipe plus UV were 0.40 CFU/mL ± 2, 0.60 CFU/mL ± 2.4, and 12.2 CFU/mL ± 69.5, respectively, with no significant difference among the treatment groups (p > 0.05). Micrococcus species (53.8%) were most frequently isolated, and no high-concern organisms were recovered.
Conclusion:
Disinfection protocols utilizing UV Smart D60 were as effective as the standard chemical disinfection protocol using Cidex OPA.
Level Of Evidence:
NA Laryngoscope, 133:3512-3519, 2023.
More Related Videos
Related Concept Videos
Hand hygiene
Hand washing...
Physical Methods for Controlling Microbial Growth: Radiation and Filtration
Cleaning, Sterilization, and Disinfection
Cleaning
The cleaning process usually involves using water with detergents or enzymatic cleaner and removing foreign material from objects and surfaces, including organic material such as body fluids or inorganic material like soil. Cleaning is performed before high-level disinfection and sterilization because foreign materials on the cover of the devices interfere with process...
Methods of Sterilization II: Chemical Methods
Using chemical sterilization rather than heat to clean out equipment is recommended. It eradicates and removes all bacteria,...
Methods of Sterilization I: Physical Methods
Steam sterilization uses non-toxic, low-cost moist heat in the form of saturated steam under pressure, which is fast, microbicidal, and sporicidal, and quickly warms and penetrates fabrics. Autoclaves, or steam sterilizers, expose each item to direct steam contact for a predetermined time at the necessary...

