Julian-Camill Harnoss1, Ojan Assadian, Markus Karl Diener, Thomas Müller, Romy Baguhl, Markus Dettenkofer, Lukas Scheerer, Thomas Kohlmann, Claus-Dieter Heidecke, Stephan Gessner, Markus Wolfgang Büchler, Axel Kramer. 1. Department of General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery and Study Center of the German Surgical Society (SDGC), University of Heidelberg; Division for Hospital Hygiene, Vienna General Hospital, Medical University Vienna; Institute for Hygiene and Environmental Medicine, University of Greifswald; Institute of Hospital Hygiene und Infection Prevention, Klinikum Konstanz; Institute for Community Medicine, University of Greifswald; Clinic and Outpatient Clinic for Surgery-Department of General Surgery, Visceral, Thoracic and Vascular Surgery, University of Greifswald.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Highly effective measures to prevent surgical wound infections have been established over the last two decades. We studied whether the strict separation of septic and aseptic procedure rooms is still necessary. METHODS: In an exploratory, prospective observational study, the microbial concentration in an operating room without a room ventilating system (RVS) was analyzed during 16 septic and 14 aseptic operations with the aid of an air sampler (50 cm and 1 m from the operative field) and sedimentation plates (1 m from the operative field, and contact culture on the walls). The means and standard deviations of the microbial loads were compared with the aid of GEE models (generalized estimation equations). RESULTS: In the comparison of septic and aseptic operations, no relevant differences were found with respect to the overall microbial concentration in the room air (401.7 ± 176.3 versus 388.2 ± 178.3 CFU/m3; p = 0.692 [CFU, colony-forming units]) or sedimentation 1 m from the operative field (45.3 ± 22.0 versus 48.7 ± 18.5 CFU/m2/min; p = 0.603) and on the walls (35.7 ± 43.7 versus 29.0 ± 49.4 CFU/m2/min; p = 0.685). The only relevant differences between the microbial spectra associated with the two types of procedure were a small amount of sedimentation of Escherichia coli and Enterococcus faecalis in septic operations, and of staphylococcus aureus and pseudomonas stutzeri in aseptic operations, up to 30 minutes after the end of the procedure. CONCLUSION: These data do not suggest that septic and aseptic procedure rooms need to be separated. In interpreting the findings, one should recall that the study was not planned as an equivalence or non-inferiority study. Wherever patient safety is concerned, high-level safety concepts should only be demoted to lower levels if new and convincing evidence becomes available.
BACKGROUND: Highly effective measures to prevent surgical wound infections have been established over the last two decades. We studied whether the strict separation of septic and aseptic procedure rooms is still necessary. METHODS: In an exploratory, prospective observational study, the microbial concentration in an operating room without a room ventilating system (RVS) was analyzed during 16 septic and 14 aseptic operations with the aid of an air sampler (50 cm and 1 m from the operative field) and sedimentation plates (1 m from the operative field, and contact culture on the walls). The means and standard deviations of the microbial loads were compared with the aid of GEE models (generalized estimation equations). RESULTS: In the comparison of septic and aseptic operations, no relevant differences were found with respect to the overall microbial concentration in the room air (401.7 ± 176.3 versus 388.2 ± 178.3 CFU/m3; p = 0.692 [CFU, colony-forming units]) or sedimentation 1 m from the operative field (45.3 ± 22.0 versus 48.7 ± 18.5 CFU/m2/min; p = 0.603) and on the walls (35.7 ± 43.7 versus 29.0 ± 49.4 CFU/m2/min; p = 0.685). The only relevant differences between the microbial spectra associated with the two types of procedure were a small amount of sedimentation of Escherichia coli and Enterococcus faecalis in septic operations, and of staphylococcus aureus and pseudomonas stutzeri in aseptic operations, up to 30 minutes after the end of the procedure. CONCLUSION: These data do not suggest that septic and aseptic procedure rooms need to be separated. In interpreting the findings, one should recall that the study was not planned as an equivalence or non-inferiority study. Wherever patient safety is concerned, high-level safety concepts should only be demoted to lower levels if new and convincing evidence becomes available.