UV
‐
C LED
Disinfection of Flexible Rhinolaryngoscopes: Microbiological, Economic, Environmental, and Legislative Evaluation
Camille Maeyaert, Sofie Claeys, Stien Vandendriessche, Hannah Siwe, Bjorn Delbeecke, Pascal Verdonck, Alain F. Kalmar ABSTRACT
Objective
To evaluate the microbiological efficacy of the Ray‐Two ultraviolet‐C (UV‐C) light‐emitting diode (LED) chamber for reprocessing flexible rhinolaryngoscopes in otorhinolaryngology (ORL) practice and compare its economic and ecological impacts with chemical high‐level disinfection using the Tristel Trio Wipes System (TTWS).
Methods
In a prospective study at a tertiary ORL center, bacterial contamination was assessed on 20 flexible rhinolaryngoscopes immediately after routine posterior rhinoscopy and/or laryngoscopy. Paired swab samples were collected from the distal 10–12 cm shaft pre‐ and post‐reprocessing: manual pre‐cleaning with tap water followed by a 4‐min UV‐C LED cycle. Samples were cultured on TSA‐5% sheep blood agar for 36 h at 35°C–37°C, with colony‐forming units (CFUs) enumerated. Per‐cycle costs and carbon footprints were calculated via life cycle assessment (ISO 14040/14044) and compared with TTWS, based on 5000 annual procedures.
Results
Pre‐reprocessing median CFUs (IQR; range) were 15 (3–27; 2 to > 200), reducing to 0 (0–0; 0–1) post‐UV‐C ( p < 0.001; > 99% reduction; 19/20 samples sterile). UV‐C per‐cycle cost was €0.56 (vs. €8.32 for TTWS; 93% savings), with a carbon footprint of 6.81 g CO 2 e (vs. 115.8 g; 94% reduction). Annual savings: €38,800 and 548 kg CO 2 e.
Conclusion
The Ray‐Two UV‐C LED chamber achieves near‐complete bacterial elimination (100% in 19/20 samples; 1 residual CFU in 1/20 samples) on flexible rhinolaryngoscopes, with superior cost‐efficiency and sustainability versus TTWS. This mercury‐free, point‐of‐care method supports greener ORL practice amid evolving EU and US state‐level regulations on mercury‐containing lamps, enhancing infection control without compromising efficacy.