Hong-Kai Wang1,2, Fei Mo1,2, Chun-Guang Ma1,2, Bo Dai1,2, Guo-Hai Shi1,2, Yao Zhu1,2, Hai-Liang Zhang3,4, Ding-Wei Ye5,6. 1. Department of Urology, Shanghai Cancer Center, Fudan University, No. 270 Dong'an Road, Shanghai, 200032, People's Republic of China. 2. Department of Oncology, Shanghai Medical College, Fudan University, Shanghai, 200032, People's Republic of China. 3. Department of Urology, Shanghai Cancer Center, Fudan University, No. 270 Dong'an Road, Shanghai, 200032, People's Republic of China. zhanghl918@163.com. 4. Department of Oncology, Shanghai Medical College, Fudan University, Shanghai, 200032, People's Republic of China. zhanghl918@163.com. 5. Department of Urology, Shanghai Cancer Center, Fudan University, No. 270 Dong'an Road, Shanghai, 200032, People's Republic of China. dwyeli@163.com. 6. Department of Oncology, Shanghai Medical College, Fudan University, Shanghai, 200032, People's Republic of China. dwyeli@163.com.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Electrocautery, harmonic scalpel tissue dissection and other surgical techniques can generate surgical smoke with high proportion of 'fine particles' (PM(2.5)) <2.5 μm, which is known to have adverse effects on human health. The high-risk zone for PM(2.5) during surgeries by time and by distance has not been well evaluated. METHODS: The study included open superficial, open abdominal, open pelvic, laparoscopic and transurethral urology surgeries, five of each. A particle counter was placed at three different distances from the incision site, and the real-time PM(2.5) concentration was displayed after each cut. Air Quality Index (AQI) revised by the US Environmental Protection Agency and the calculated inhalation dose were used to evaluate the severity of PM(2.5). RESULTS: In superficial, abdominal and pelvic surgeries, the peak PM(2.5) concentration may reach 245.7, 149.4 and 165.1 μg/m(3) 3-6 s after a single cut 40 cm from the incision site. By the time, AQI usually turns to 'unhealthy' or 'very unhealthy.' In laparoscopic surgeries, 40 cm from the trocar, the air quality reached 'hazardous' in 3 s after opening of the trocar valve with a peak concentration of 517.5 μg/m(3). In transurethral surgeries, the AQI 40 cm away from the resectoscope is generally at moderate level. In each surgery, the chief surgeon may inhale most of the PM(2.5), while the assistant will inhale less than half the dose, and the scrub nurse may inhale nearly none. The use of wall suction may induce a 48-65 % decrease in fine particle inhalation. CONCLUSIONS: During surgeries, the concentration of PM(2.5) could reach a very unhealthy status, especially for the chief surgeon who is the nearest to the incision site. Surgical smoke evacuation in the first few seconds of a cut is essential; however, using smoke evacuators such as a wall suction alone may not be enough.
INTRODUCTION: Electrocautery, harmonic scalpel tissue dissection and other surgical techniques can generate surgical smoke with high proportion of 'fine particles' (PM(2.5)) <2.5 μm, which is known to have adverse effects on human health. The high-risk zone for PM(2.5) during surgeries by time and by distance has not been well evaluated. METHODS: The study included open superficial, open abdominal, open pelvic, laparoscopic and transurethral urology surgeries, five of each. A particle counter was placed at three different distances from the incision site, and the real-time PM(2.5) concentration was displayed after each cut. Air Quality Index (AQI) revised by the US Environmental Protection Agency and the calculated inhalation dose were used to evaluate the severity of PM(2.5). RESULTS: In superficial, abdominal and pelvic surgeries, the peak PM(2.5) concentration may reach 245.7, 149.4 and 165.1 μg/m(3) 3-6 s after a single cut 40 cm from the incision site. By the time, AQI usually turns to 'unhealthy' or 'very unhealthy.' In laparoscopic surgeries, 40 cm from the trocar, the air quality reached 'hazardous' in 3 s after opening of the trocar valve with a peak concentration of 517.5 μg/m(3). In transurethral surgeries, the AQI 40 cm away from the resectoscope is generally at moderate level. In each surgery, the chief surgeon may inhale most of the PM(2.5), while the assistant will inhale less than half the dose, and the scrub nurse may inhale nearly none. The use of wall suction may induce a 48-65 % decrease in fine particle inhalation. CONCLUSIONS: During surgeries, the concentration of PM(2.5) could reach a very unhealthy status, especially for the chief surgeon who is the nearest to the incision site. Surgical smoke evacuation in the first few seconds of a cut is essential; however, using smoke evacuators such as a wall suction alone may not be enough.
Entities:
Keywords:
Air quality; Fine particle; PM2.5; Surgical smoke
Authors: Rob Beelen; Ole Raaschou-Nielsen; Massimo Stafoggia; Zorana Jovanovic Andersen; Gudrun Weinmayr; Barbara Hoffmann; Kathrin Wolf; Evangelia Samoli; Paul Fischer; Mark Nieuwenhuijsen; Paolo Vineis; Wei W Xun; Klea Katsouyanni; Konstantina Dimakopoulou; Anna Oudin; Bertil Forsberg; Lars Modig; Aki S Havulinna; Timo Lanki; Anu Turunen; Bente Oftedal; Wenche Nystad; Per Nafstad; Ulf De Faire; Nancy L Pedersen; Claes-Göran Östenson; Laura Fratiglioni; Johanna Penell; Michal Korek; Göran Pershagen; Kirsten Thorup Eriksen; Kim Overvad; Thomas Ellermann; Marloes Eeftens; Petra H Peeters; Kees Meliefste; Meng Wang; Bas Bueno-de-Mesquita; Dorothea Sugiri; Ursula Krämer; Joachim Heinrich; Kees de Hoogh; Timothy Key; Annette Peters; Regina Hampel; Hans Concin; Gabriele Nagel; Alex Ineichen; Emmanuel Schaffner; Nicole Probst-Hensch; Nino Künzli; Christian Schindler; Tamara Schikowski; Martin Adam; Harish Phuleria; Alice Vilier; Françoise Clavel-Chapelon; Christophe Declercq; Sara Grioni; Vittorio Krogh; Ming-Yi Tsai; Fulvio Ricceri; Carlotta Sacerdote; Claudia Galassi; Enrica Migliore; Andrea Ranzi; Giulia Cesaroni; Chiara Badaloni; Francesco Forastiere; Ibon Tamayo; Pilar Amiano; Miren Dorronsoro; Michail Katsoulis; Antonia Trichopoulou; Bert Brunekreef; Gerard Hoek Journal: Lancet Date: 2013-12-09 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Giulia Cesaroni; Francesco Forastiere; Massimo Stafoggia; Zorana J Andersen; Chiara Badaloni; Rob Beelen; Barbara Caracciolo; Ulf de Faire; Raimund Erbel; Kirsten T Eriksen; Laura Fratiglioni; Claudia Galassi; Regina Hampel; Margit Heier; Frauke Hennig; Agneta Hilding; Barbara Hoffmann; Danny Houthuijs; Karl-Heinz Jöckel; Michal Korek; Timo Lanki; Karin Leander; Patrik K E Magnusson; Enrica Migliore; Caes-Göran Ostenson; Kim Overvad; Nancy L Pedersen; Juha Pekkanen J; Johanna Penell; Göran Pershagen; Andrei Pyko; Ole Raaschou-Nielsen; Andrea Ranzi; Fulvio Ricceri; Carlotta Sacerdote; Veikko Salomaa; Wim Swart; Anu W Turunen; Paolo Vineis; Gudrun Weinmayr; Kathrin Wolf; Kees de Hoogh; Gerard Hoek; Bert Brunekreef; Annette Peters Journal: BMJ Date: 2014-01-21
Authors: Markus Karjalainen; Anton Kontunen; Sampo Saari; Topi Rönkkö; Jukka Lekkala; Antti Roine; Niku Oksala Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-04-12 Impact factor: 3.240