Daniel C O'Brien1, Eun Gyung Lee2, Jhy-Charm Soo2, Sherri Friend3, Sarah Callaham4, Michele M Carr1. 1. Department of Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery, University of West Virginia, Morgantown, West Virginia, USA. 2. Health Effects Laboratory Division, Exposure Assessment Branch, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Morgantown, West Virginia, USA. 3. Health Effects Laboratory Division, Pathology and Physiology Research Branch, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Morgantown, West Virginia, USA. 4. School of Medicine, West Virginia University, Morgantown, West Virginia, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To assess the exposure of surgical personnel to known carcinogens during pediatric tonsillectomy and adenoidectomy (T&A) and compare the efficacy of surgical smoke evacuation systems during T&A. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective, case series. SETTING: Tertiary children's hospital. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: The present study assessed operating room workers' exposure to chemical compounds and aerosolized particulates generated during T&A. We also investigated the effect of 3 different smoke-controlling methods: smoke-evacuator pencil cautery (SE), cautery with suction held by an assistant (SA), and cautery without suction (NS). RESULTS: Thirty cases were included: 12 in the SE group, 9 in SA, and 9 in NS. The chemical exposure levels were lower than or similar to baseline background concentrations, with the exception of methylene chloride and acetaldehyde. Within the surgical plume, none of the chemical compounds exceeded the corresponding occupational exposure limit (OEL). The mean particulate number concentration in the breathing zone during tonsillectomy was 508 particles/cm3 for SE compared to 1661 particles/cm3 for SA and 8208 particles/cm3 for NS cases. NS was significantly different compared to the other two methods (P = .0009). CONCLUSIONS: Although the exposure levels to chemicals were considerably lower than the OELs, continuous exposures to these chemicals could cause adverse health effects to surgical personnel. These findings suggest that the use of a smoke-evacuator pencil cautery or an attentive assistant with handheld suction would reduce exposure levels to the aerosolized particles during routine T&A, compared to the use of cautery without suction.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the exposure of surgical personnel to known carcinogens during pediatric tonsillectomy and adenoidectomy (T&A) and compare the efficacy of surgical smoke evacuation systems during T&A. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective, case series. SETTING: Tertiary children's hospital. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: The present study assessed operating room workers' exposure to chemical compounds and aerosolized particulates generated during T&A. We also investigated the effect of 3 different smoke-controlling methods: smoke-evacuator pencil cautery (SE), cautery with suction held by an assistant (SA), and cautery without suction (NS). RESULTS: Thirty cases were included: 12 in the SE group, 9 in SA, and 9 in NS. The chemical exposure levels were lower than or similar to baseline background concentrations, with the exception of methylene chloride and acetaldehyde. Within the surgical plume, none of the chemical compounds exceeded the corresponding occupational exposure limit (OEL). The mean particulate number concentration in the breathing zone during tonsillectomy was 508 particles/cm3 for SE compared to 1661 particles/cm3 for SA and 8208 particles/cm3 for NS cases. NS was significantly different compared to the other two methods (P = .0009). CONCLUSIONS: Although the exposure levels to chemicals were considerably lower than the OELs, continuous exposures to these chemicals could cause adverse health effects to surgical personnel. These findings suggest that the use of a smoke-evacuator pencil cautery or an attentive assistant with handheld suction would reduce exposure levels to the aerosolized particles during routine T&A, compared to the use of cautery without suction.
Authors: Miłosz Dobrogowski; Wiktor Wesolowski; Małgorzata Kucharska; Katarzyna Paduszyńska; Agnieszka Dworzyńska; Wiesław Szymczak; Andrzej Sapota; Lech Pomorski Journal: Int J Occup Med Environ Health Date: 2015 Impact factor: 1.843
Authors: J M Garden; M K O'Banion; L S Shelnitz; K S Pinski; A D Bakus; M E Reichmann; J P Sundberg Journal: JAMA Date: 1988-02-26 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Andrew R Moot; Katherine M Ledingham; Paul F Wilson; Senti T Senthilmohan; David R Lewis; Justin Roake; Randall Allardyce Journal: ANZ J Surg Date: 2007 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 1.872
Authors: Gordon H Sun; Katherine A Auger; Oluseyi Aliu; Stephen W Patrick; Sonya DeMonner; Matthew M Davis Journal: Med Care Date: 2013-12 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Gregor J Kocher; Abigail R Koss; Michael Groessl; Joerg C Schefold; Markus M Luedi; Christopher Quapp; Patrick Dorn; Jon Lutz; Luca Cappellin; Manuel Hutterli; Felipe D Lopez-Hilfiker; Mohammad Al-Hurani; Sergio B Sesia Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2022-03-23 Impact factor: 4.379