S M McHugh1, A D K Hill2, H Humphreys3. 1. Department of Surgery, Beaumont Hospital, Dublin 9, Ireland; Department of Surgery, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, Dublin 2, Ireland. Electronic address: seamusmchugh@rcsi.ie. 2. Department of Surgery, Beaumont Hospital, Dublin 9, Ireland; Department of Surgery, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, Dublin 2, Ireland. 3. Department of Microbiology, Beaumont Hospital, Dublin 9, Ireland; Department of Clinical Microbiology, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, Dublin 9, Ireland.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Laminar airflow (LAF) systems are thought to minimise contamination of the surgical field with airborne microbes and thus to contribute to reducing surgical site infections (SSI). However recent publications have questioned whether LAF ventilation confers any significant benefit and may indeed be harmful. METHODS: A detailed literature review was undertaken through www.Pubmed.com and Google scholar (http://scholar.google.com). Search terms used included "laminar flow". "laminar airflow", "surgical site infection prevention", "theatre ventilation" and "operating room ventilation", "orthopaedic theatre" and "ultra-clean ventilation". Peer-reviewed publications in the English language over the last 50 years were included, up to and including March 2014. RESULTS: Laminar airflow systems are predominantly used in clean prosthetic implant surgery. Several studies have demonstrated decreased air bacterial contamination with LAF using bacterial sedimentation plates placed in key areas of the operating room. However, apart from the initial Medical Research Council study, there are few clinical studies demonstrating a convincing correlation between decreased SSI rates and LAF. Moreover, recent analyses suggest increased post-operative SSI rates. CONCLUSION: It is premature to dispense with LAF as a measure to improve air quality in operating rooms where prosthetic joint surgery is being carried out. However, new multi-centre trials to assess this or the use of national prospective surveillance systems to explore other variables that might explain these findings such as poor operating room discipline are needed, to resolve this important surgical issue.
INTRODUCTION: Laminar airflow (LAF) systems are thought to minimise contamination of the surgical field with airborne microbes and thus to contribute to reducing surgical site infections (SSI). However recent publications have questioned whether LAF ventilation confers any significant benefit and may indeed be harmful. METHODS: A detailed literature review was undertaken through www.Pubmed.com and Google scholar (http://scholar.google.com). Search terms used included "laminar flow". "laminar airflow", "surgical site infection prevention", "theatre ventilation" and "operating room ventilation", "orthopaedic theatre" and "ultra-clean ventilation". Peer-reviewed publications in the English language over the last 50 years were included, up to and including March 2014. RESULTS: Laminar airflow systems are predominantly used in clean prosthetic implant surgery. Several studies have demonstrated decreased air bacterial contamination with LAF using bacterial sedimentation plates placed in key areas of the operating room. However, apart from the initial Medical Research Council study, there are few clinical studies demonstrating a convincing correlation between decreased SSI rates and LAF. Moreover, recent analyses suggest increased post-operative SSI rates. CONCLUSION: It is premature to dispense with LAF as a measure to improve air quality in operating rooms where prosthetic joint surgery is being carried out. However, new multi-centre trials to assess this or the use of national prospective surveillance systems to explore other variables that might explain these findings such as poor operating room discipline are needed, to resolve this important surgical issue.
Authors: Jiri Gallo; Ales Panacek; Robert Prucek; Eva Kriegova; Sarka Hradilova; Martin Hobza; Martin Holinka Journal: Materials (Basel) Date: 2016-05-05 Impact factor: 3.623
Authors: Brian Ponnaiya; Manuela Buonanno; David Welch; Igor Shuryak; Gerhard Randers-Pehrson; David J Brenner Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-02-21 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Chiara Pomare; Kate Churruca; Janet C Long; Louise A Ellis; Brett Gardiner; Jeffrey Braithwaite Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2019-07-09 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Francesco Romano; Samanta Milani; Roberto Ricci; Cesare Maria Joppolo Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-10-05 Impact factor: 3.390