Literature DB >> 23605191

Is surgical smoke harmful to theater staff? a systematic review.

Nicholas Mowbray1, James Ansell, Neil Warren, Pete Wall, Jared Torkington.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Smoke is generated by energy-based surgical instruments. The airborne byproducts may have potential health implications. This study aimed to evaluate the properties of surgical smoke and the evidence for the harmful effects to the theater staff.
METHODS: Cochrane Database, MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase classic and Embase, and the metaRegister of Controlled Trials were searched for studies reporting the constituents found in the smoke plume created during surgical procedures, the methods used to analyze the smoke, the implications of exposure, and the type of surgical instrument that generated the smoke. Studies were excluded if they were animal based, preclinical experimental work, or opinion-based reports. The common end points were particle size and characteristics, infection risk, malignant spread, and mutagenesis.
RESULTS: The inclusion criteria were fulfilled by 20 studies. In terms of particle size, 5 (25%) of the 20 studies showed that diathermy and laser can produce ultrafine particles (UFP) that are respirable in size. With regard to particle characterization, 7 (35%) of the 20 studies demonstrated that a variety of volatile hydrocarbons are present in diathermy-, ultrasonic-, and laser-derived surgical smoke. These are potentially carcinogenic, but no evidence exists to support a cause-effect relationship for those exposed. In terms of infection risk, 6 (30%) of the 20 studies assessed surgical smoke for the presence of viruses, with only 1 study (5%) positively identifying viral DNA in laser-derived smoke. One study (5%) demonstrated bacterial cell culture (Staphylococcus aureus) from a laser plume after surgery. Regarding mutagenesis and malignant spread, one study (5%) reported the mutagenic effect of smoke, and one study (5%) showed the presence of malignant cells in the smoke of a patient undergoing procedures for carcinomatosis.
CONCLUSIONS: The potentially carcinogenic components of surgical smoke are sufficiently small to be respirable. Infective and malignant cells are found in the smoke plume, but the full risk of this to the theater staff is unproven. Future work could focus on the long-term consequences of smoke exposure.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23605191     DOI: 10.1007/s00464-013-2940-5

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Surg Endosc        ISSN: 0930-2794            Impact factor:   4.584


  31 in total

1.  Comparison of current and past surgical smoke control practices.

Authors:  Ben E Edwards; Robert E Reiman
Journal:  AORN J       Date:  2012-03       Impact factor: 0.676

2.  Electrosurgery: history, principles, and current and future uses.

Authors:  Nader N Massarweh; Ned Cosgriff; Douglas P Slakey
Journal:  J Am Coll Surg       Date:  2006-03       Impact factor: 6.113

3.  Microbiologic activity in laser resurfacing plume and debris.

Authors:  P J Capizzi; R P Clay; M J Battey
Journal:  Lasers Surg Med       Date:  1998       Impact factor: 4.025

4.  Chemical production in electrocautery smoke by a novel predictive model.

Authors:  Y-C Wu; C-S Tang; H-Y Huang; C-H Liu; Y-L Chen; D-R Chen; Y-W Lin
Journal:  Eur Surg Res       Date:  2011-01-11       Impact factor: 1.745

5.  Absence of human papillomavirus DNA in the plume of erbium:YAG laser-treated warts.

Authors:  P S Hughes; A P Hughes
Journal:  J Am Acad Dermatol       Date:  1998-03       Impact factor: 11.527

6.  A single-blind controlled study of electrocautery and ultrasonic scalpel smoke plumes in laparoscopic surgery.

Authors:  J Edward F Fitzgerald; Momin Malik; Irfan Ahmed
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2011-09-05       Impact factor: 4.584

Review 7.  Surgical smoke: a review of the literature. Is this just a lot of hot air?

Authors:  W L Barrett; S M Garber
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2003-03-19       Impact factor: 4.584

8.  Smoke from laser surgery: is there a health hazard?

Authors:  C Nezhat; W K Winer; F Nezhat; C Nezhat; D Forrest; W G Reeves
Journal:  Lasers Surg Med       Date:  1987       Impact factor: 4.025

9.  Smoke in the operating theater: an unregarded source of danger.

Authors:  Ralph Hollmann; Christian E Hort; Erich Kammer; Markus Naegele; Markus W Sigrist; Claudia Meuli-Simmen
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg       Date:  2004-08       Impact factor: 4.730

10.  Surgical smoke and ultrafine particles.

Authors:  Irene Brüske-Hohlfeld; Gerhard Preissler; Karl-Walter Jauch; Mike Pitz; Dennis Nowak; Annette Peters; H-Erich Wichmann
Journal:  J Occup Med Toxicol       Date:  2008-12-03       Impact factor: 2.646

View more
  23 in total

1.  Surgical Smoke-Concern for Both Doctors and Patients.

Authors:  Sidra Jamal; Maroof Hassan; Marium Farooqi; Sajid Ali
Journal:  Indian J Surg       Date:  2014-11-16       Impact factor: 0.656

Review 2.  Safety considerations for Health care Workers involved in Cytoreductive Surgery and Perioperative chemotherapy.

Authors:  Aditi Bhatt; Sourabh Mittal; K S Gopinath
Journal:  Indian J Surg Oncol       Date:  2016-02-02

3.  Prospective, randomized comparison of the use of FloShield Air System® versus the reference technique (water + povidone-iodine solution) during gynecologic endoscopic surgery to evaluate the operative lens vision quality.

Authors:  S Bendifallah; E Salakos; I Naoura; P Aristizabal; E Furet; S Zilberman; M Ballester; E Darai
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2017-06-22       Impact factor: 4.584

Review 4.  Surgical safety in the COVID-19 era: present and future considerations.

Authors:  Young Il Kim; In Ja Park
Journal:  Ann Surg Treat Res       Date:  2022-06-07       Impact factor: 1.766

5.  Aerosolization in Endoscopic Sinus Surgery and Risk Mitigation in the COVID-19 Era: A Scoping Review.

Authors:  Catherine F Roy; Emily Kay-Rivest; Lily H P Nguyen; Denis Sirhan; Marc A Tewfik
Journal:  J Neurol Surg B Skull Base       Date:  2020-12-04

Review 6.  Surgical smoke and the anesthesia provider.

Authors:  Barry N Swerdlow
Journal:  J Anesth       Date:  2020-04-15       Impact factor: 2.078

7.  Electrostatic precipitation is a novel way of maintaining visual field clarity during laparoscopic surgery: a prospective double-blind randomized controlled pilot study.

Authors:  James Ansell; Neil Warren; Pete Wall; Kim Cocks; Stuart Goddard; Richard Whiston; Michael Stechman; David Scott-Coombes; Jared Torkington
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2014-02-26       Impact factor: 4.584

8.  Electrosurgical Smoke: Ultrafine Particle Measurements and Work Environment Quality in Different Operating Theatres.

Authors:  Francesco Romano; Jan Gustén; Stefano De Antonellis; Cesare M Joppolo
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2017-01-30       Impact factor: 3.390

9.  Re: Strategy for the practice of digestive and oncological surgery during the Covid-19 epidemic.

Authors:  A R Rao
Journal:  J Visc Surg       Date:  2020-06-19       Impact factor: 2.043

10.  Occupational exposures in the operating room: Are surgeons well-equipped?

Authors:  Wilmina N Landford; Ledibabari M Ngaage; Erica Lee; Yvonne Rasko; Robin Yang; Sheri Slezak; Richard Redett
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2021-07-02       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.