| Literature DB >> 33027963 |
Francesco Romano1, Samanta Milani1, Roberto Ricci2, Cesare Maria Joppolo1.
Abstract
In Operating Theatres (OT), the ventilation system plays an important role in controlling airborne contamination and reducing the risks of Surgical Site Infections (SSIs). The air cleanliness is really crucial in this field and different measurements are used in order to characterize the situation in terms of both airborne microbiological pollutants and particle size and concentration. Although the ventilation systems and airborne contamination are strictly linked, different air diffusion schemes (in particular, the Partial Unidirectional Airflow, P-UDAF, and the Mixing Airflow, MAF) and various design parameters are used, and there is still no consensus on real performance and optimum solutions. This study presents measurements procedures and results obtained during Inspection and Periodic Performance Testing (1228 observations) in a large sample of Italian OTs (175 OTs in 31 Italian hospitals) in their operative life (period from 2010 to 2018). The inspections were made after a cleaning procedure, both in "at-rest" conditions and "in operation" state. Inert and microbial contamination data (in air and on surfaces) are analyzed and commented according to four relevant air diffusion schemes and design classes. Related data on Recovery Time (RT) and personnel presence were picked up and are commented. The results confirm that the ventilation systems are able to maintain the targeted performance levels in the OT operative life. However, they attest that significant differences in real OT contamination control capabilities do exist and could be ascribed to various design choices and to different operation and maintenance practices. The study shows and confirms that the air diffusion scheme and the design airflow rate are critical factors. Beside large variations in measurements, the performance values, in terms of control of airborne particle and microbial contamination (in air and on surfaces), for P-UDAF systems are better than those that were assessed for the MAF air diffusion solution. The average performances do increase with increasing airflows, and the results offer a better insight on this relationship leading to some possible optimization.Entities:
Keywords: microbiological contamination; mixing airflow; operating theatres; particle contamination; unidirectional airflow; ventilation systems
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 33027963 PMCID: PMC7579584 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph17197275
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Type of measurements and sampling locations according to the occupational state.
| Qualification Test | Occupancy State | Positions |
|---|---|---|
| Microbiological air sampling | At-rest | Center of surgical table |
| Surface microbiological sampling | At-rest | 4 surfaces in OT a |
| Airborne particles sampling | At-rest | Protected zone for P-UDAF and everywhere for MAF systems b |
| Recovery time | At-rest | Center of surgical table for MAF, dirtiest point outside ceiling filter for P-UDAF systems |
| Microbiological air sampling | Operational | Close to the surgical wound |
a surgical table, scialytic lamp, surgical instruments table, anesthesia tower. b sampling points under ceiling HEPA filter for ISO Class 5 OTs (P-UDAF) according to ISO 14644-1:2015 [46]; sampling points evenly distributed according to ISO 14644-1:2015 [46] for ISO Class 7 OTs (P-UDAF and MAF).
Bio-contaminants threshold value for Operating Theatres (OTs) according INAIL GL [49].
|
| |||
| At-Rest | Operational | ||
| MAF | UDAF | MAF | UDAF |
| ≤35 CFU m−3 | NA | ≤180 CFU m−3 | ≤20 CFU m−3 |
|
| |||
| ≤5 CFU plate−1 | ≤5 CFU plate−1 | NA | NA |
Particle and microbial threshold limit for clean area during operation according to Annex 1, EU-GMP [52].
| EU-GMP Grade | ISO Class | Particle Concentration Limit (≥0.5 µm) | Microbial Concentration Limit | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| In Air, | In Air, Operational | In Air, Operational | On Surface, Operational | ||
| A | 5 | 3520 | 3520 | <1 | <1 |
| B | 5 | 3520 | 352,000 | 10 | 5 |
| C | 7 | 352,000 | 3,520,000 | 100 | 25 |
| D | 8 | 3,520,000 | Not Defined | 200 | 50 |
Overview of the OTs and descriptive statistics of the measurement results.
| System | P-UDAF | MAF | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OT Type | Type A | Type B | Type C | Type D | |
| ISO Class | 5 | 7 | 7 | 7 | |
| Number of OTs | 27 | 31 | 16 | 101 | |
| Ambient Volume [m3] | Mean | 136.9 | 126.0 | 120.0 | 105.4 |
| Standard deviation | 13.3 | 16.0 | 22.6 | 22.5 | |
| ACH | Mean | 51.2 | 19.0 | 15.1 | 18.4 |
| Standard deviation | 5.5 | 3.8 | 5.0 | 5.2 | |
| Airborne particle concentration [pp m−3], (≥0.5 µm) in at-rest conditions | Mean | 326 | 25,970 | 28,878 | 56,400 |
| Standard deviation | 235 | 31,525 | 14,479 | 85,332 | |
| Min | 0 | 0 | 2027 | 437 | |
| Max | 2641 | 193,313 | 229,613 | 556,904 | |
| Microbiological air contamination | Mean | 0.9 | 3.3 | 9.9 | 11.8 |
| Standard deviation | 1.0 | 3.5 | 4.4 | 12.7 | |
| Min | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | |
| Max | 13.3 | 30.5 | 86.7 | 392.5 | |
| Microbiological air contamination | Mean | 5.5 | 20.7 | 72.8 | 55.2 |
| Standard deviation | 7.0 | 20.2 | 18.7 | 32.0 | |
| Min | 0.0 | 0.0 | 13.6 | 4.2 | |
| Max | 125.0 | 167.9 | 327.5 | 339.4 | |
| Recovery time [min] | Mean | 7.2 | 14.0 | 28.5 | 23.0 |
| Standard deviation | 0.6 | 4.1 | 11.9 | 8.4 | |
| Min | 6.2 | 8.5 | 18.3 | 11.0 | |
| Max | 7.7 | 20.8 | 66.7 | 40.8 | |
| Inspections non-compliant with INAIL [ | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Inspections non-compliant with INAIL [ | NA | NA | 2.6 | 6.1 | |
| Inspections non-compliant with INAIL [ | 1.3 | 23.2 | 3.1 | 2.4 | |
| Inspections non-compliant with EU-GMP [ | 10.8 | 1.8 | 20.3 | 10.1 | |
| (Grade B) | (Grade C) | (Grade C) | (Grade C) | ||
Figure 1Average airborne particle concentration vs. ACH in “at-rest” conditions for the 175 investigated OTs. Cumulated values for particles ≥0.5 µm.
Results of comparison between multiple OTs samples. The comparisons are referred to the 175 investigated OTs in terms of particle concentration “at-rest” and microbiological air contamination “at-rest” and “operational”.
| Comparison | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Sample 2 | Particle Concentration “At-Rest” | Microbiological Air Contamination “At Rest” ( | Microbiological Air Contamination “Operational” ( |
| Type A | Type B | 0.568 | 0.795 | 0.133 |
| Type A | Type C | 0.522 | 0.016 | 0.000 |
| Type A | Type D | 0.001 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Type B | Type C | 0.997 | 0.105 | 0.000 |
| Type B | Type D | 0.225 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Type C | Type D | 0.513 | 0.968 | 0.030 |
Figure 2Average microbiological air contamination vs. air changes per hour (ACH) in “at-rest” conditions for the 175 investigated OTs.
Figure 3Recovery Time vs. ACH in “at-rest” conditions. Values of the 175 investigated OTs.
Figure 4Average microbiological air contamination vs. ACH in “operational” conditions for the 175 investigated OTs.
Figure 5Average microbiological air contamination vs. personnel crowd index in “operational” conditions for different ventilation systems. Values for 175 investigated OTs.
Figure 6Average microbiological surface contamination in different OT locations under “at rest” conditions after cleaning procedures. Position 1 = surgical table, Position 2 = scialytic lamp, Position 3 = surgical instruments table, Position 4 = anesthesia tower.