EBME Forums Forums Maintenance Technical Assistance Luer Lock Connectors for NiBP Cuffs/Systems

Hi Marcelo,

Thanks for the information which I will digest over the next day or so. One thing I've tried to do is find out if there are different sizes of Luer Lock fittings. So far I've found no evidence to suggest this, what is your opinion.

Thanks again for the info.

Richie

There are alternative connectors available for cuff connections that are in widespread use, that are not luer-locks, so I suppose the issues associated with luer lock connections can easily be avoided.

I think that you will have some difficults finding luer fittings of different sizes simply because the fittings of the size defined in ISO 594 became a standard. This also explains the problem with connectors and connections (mind you that is no just luer - the standard i cited before (and i cited the wrong on, sorry, the right one is ISO 80369-1 Small bore connectors for liquids and gases in healthcare applications -- Part 1: General requirements) will be in 8 parts, each one for some type of connection). Imagine the problem if you use a different fitting and your equipment cannot be connected to other common typer of equipment??

Yes you're correct I think but isn't the problem here that we don't want to connect to luer lock, i.e. vascular access connectors?

I think we got over the fact that use of luer locks isn't best practice nor recommended a while back - certainly needed thinking about anyhow depending upon the risks involved.

Welch Allyn, for example, can provide me with about 10 different types of NIBP connector in common use by a range of manufacturers that are not luer lock.

This avoids the use of a connector, e.g. luer lock, that can be inadvertently connected to vascular access devices. A hazard if somebody connects the NIBP device to an infusion line via a luer lock, for example.

Isn't this what was being argued earlier - that avoiding the use of standard luer locks is a good method of preventing accidents.

This is what the CEN document you referred to earlier actually argues. It's ok grabbing this stuff but it has to be read. Saying this the postings are very useful - thanks.

Hum, i was trying to answer the question on still using a luer connector, different from the standard one.

Anyway, you´re right in your statements on the problem of connectors.

And you´re right again regargind the reading of the CEN document. In fact i haven´t read it, as i said in a earlier post, just because i do not have it, but i´ve read the ISO which is the only one i have access to.

I'm pretty certain that there are "luer-lock" type connectors used for NIBP devices that look like luer locks but do not meet the dimensions defined in the relevant manufacturing standards. Hence I wouldn't regard these as much of a risk as a standard luer-lock connection.

Plus it depends where the luer-lock connector is attached. If the male connector is attached to a cuff then the ability to connect the female NIBP connector to a female vascular access device, i.e. line attached to the patient, is limited because a male-male adaptor would be required. So it wouldn't be possible to connect the NIBP device, only the deflated cuff, without an adaptor.

However the risk of this is probably still unacceptable so personally I wouldn't be inclined to use any sort of standard luer-lock connector if it could be fitted or adapted to fit standard luer-lock devices. They should be reserved for vascular access devices only is still the current thinking isn't it?

Saying that it must look like I'm trying to teach you your job, or "teach grandma to suck eggs", as we say, and I shouldn't since you work in the regulatory business and I only service equipment, so I can only give-way to your knowledge of what's involved.

Just to stir the muddy waters a bit more, up until the ISO standard was adopted for lure loks and slips, the American market adopted a 3 degree slope on the male luer slip/lok and Europe had a 4.5 degree slope. There is still some incompatability out there though when manufacturers do not adhere to the ISO standard.

That's interesting - useful as well. Have you had any issues with incompatibility where you've worked Kawasaki?

Richard
Back in the late 80s and early 90s there were lots of issues with incompatability with regard to luer connectors with fluid leaks etc.
I have not come across anything recently; the last "incident" was about 4-5 years ago where a "luer lok" device made in Brazil did not meet the ISO standard and caused a leak.

Well, i would not use a luer, even a non-standard one, but that doesn´t mean others couldn´t. The problem with standards is that some people use them to compansate for their lack of knowledge and thus limit themselves in some ways.

As for "teaching my job", do not worry, i´m the kind of of guy that thinks i´m always learning and try to learn from everywhere. That´s why these foruns are for, anyway :-)