Dynamics of surgical smoke in the operating room during spinal surgery: Comparison of particulate matter 2.5-air concentration between the electric scalpel with and without a smoke evacuation pencil: A cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Surgical smoke is a vaporous by-product generated during tissue incision and cauterization with an electric scalpel. This smoke contains tissue- and blood/vascular-derived substances, bacteria, viruses, and chemical substances. Among them, it contains many fine particles called particulate matter (PM) 2.5, which are harmful and hazardous to the human body. We aimed to investigate the occurrence of PM2.5 in surgical smoke produced during spinal surgery and to evaluate the efficacy of an electric scalpel with a smoke evacuation pencil. METHODS: In this retrospective observational study, 89 patients who underwent spinal surgery between June 2019 and May 2021 were included. A dust monitor was installed in the operating room to measure the PM2.5 air concentration during the surgery. During each surgery, the total amount of PM2.5, the maximum PM2.5 air concentration, the exposure time to PM2.5, and the average value of PM2.5 air concentration from the start to the end of the surgery were calculated. RESULTS: We found that in 29 of the 89 cases (32.6%), the air concentration of PM2.5 increased to a level that could cause health damage during the surgery. Twelve cases (13.4%) reached the level that could cause serious health damage, and 8 cases (9%) reached an emergency warning level. The total amount and the maximum and average levels of PM2.5 were significantly suppressed in the surgery with a smoke evacuation pencil group than in the surgery without a smoke evacuation pencil group. CONCLUSION: We detected hazardous levels of PM2.5 in the air during spinal surgery, highlighting the importance of considering smoke control or reduction during spinal surgery. We recommend using an electric scalpel with a smoke evacuation pencil for regulating PM2.5 levels in the operating room.

Ultrafine particle concentrations during laser hair removal: Effectiveness of smoke evacuators.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Laser smoke is a biohazard that contains potentially dangerous toxic and biological components. In laser hair removal (LHR), practitioners undergo prolonged exposure as this procedure is widely used without protective measures. Little is known about the effect of smoke evacuators on ultrafine particle concentrations during LHR. This study aims to assess the effect of different laser devices and different smoke evacuators on the ultrafine particle concentrations in the room during LHR. STUDY DESIGN/MATERIALS AND METHODS: In a prospective observational study, we included patients with skin phototypes 2-4 for 755 nm Alexandrite LHR at two study sites, receiving treatment in axillae and pubic areas. Ultrafine particle concentrations were measured during LHR for two different alexandrite lasers, with and without an external smoke evacuator. Moreover, we assessed a device for LHR with a smoke evacuator integrated into the handpiece. Primary outcomes were the concentration of ultrafine particles (0.2-0.3 µm) per m3 at 1 min after initiation of treatment and maximum concentrations. RESULTS: A total of 15 patients were recruited for routine LHR. Without a smoke evacuator, already at 1 minute after treatment onset, ultrafine particle concentrations rapidly increased. Both external and integrated smoke evacuators were highly effective with a 3.7-7-fold decrease in maximal particle count. Similarly, maximal particle concentrations remained low with both smoke evacuators. At both study sites, particle concentrations decreased slowly (8 min for 50% reduction) when treatment stopped. CONCLUSION: LHR procedures generated an increase of ultrafine particles. Both the external and integrated smoke evacuators are highly effective in controlling ultrafine particle concentrations during LHR. Once particle concentrations are elevated and the process had been completed, clearance of ultrafine particles is rather slow.

Smoke Evacuation During Laparoscopic Surgery: A Problem Beyond the COVID-19 Period. A Quantitative Analysis of CO2 Environmental Dispersion Using Different Devices.

Background. The COVID-19 pandemic leads to several debates regarding the possible risk for healthcare professionals during surgery. SAGES and EAES raised the issue of the transmission of infection through the surgical smoke during laparoscopy. They recommended the use of smoke evacuation devices (SEDs) with CO2 filtering systems. The aim of the present study is to compare the efficacy of different SEDs evaluating the CO2 environmental dispersion in the operating theater. Methods. We prospectively evaluated the data of 4 group of patients on which we used different SEDs or standard trocars: AIRSEAL system (S1 group), a homemade device (S2 group), an AIRSEAL system + homemade device (S3 group), and with standard trocars and without SED (S4 group). Quantitative analysis of CO2 environmental dispersion was carried out associated to the following data in order to evaluate the pneumoperitoneum variations: a preset insufflation pressure, real intraoperative pneumoperitoneum pressure, operative time, total volume of insufflated CO2, and flow rate index. Results. 16 patients were prospectively enrolled. The [CO2] mean value was 711 ppm, 641 ppm, 593 ppm, and 761 ppm in S1, S2, S3, and S4 groups, respectively. The comparison between data of all groups showed statistically significant differences in the measured ambient CO2 concentration. Conclusion. All tested SEDs seem to be useful to reduce the CO2 environmental dispersion respect to the use of standard trocars. The association of AIRSEAL system and a homemade device seems to be the best solution combining an adequate smoke evacuation and a stable pneumoperitoneum during laparoscopic surgery.

Low-cost, safe, and effective smoke evacuation device for surgical procedures in the COVID-19 age.

BACKGROUND: Smoke is generated by energy-based surgical instruments. The airborne by-products may have potential health implications. METHODS: We developed a simple way to use de conventional surgical evacuator coupled with de electrosurgical pen attached to a 14G bladder catheter for open surgery. It was used in ten prospective patients with breast cancer. RESULTS: We notice a high reduction in surgical smoke during all breast surgery. A questionnaire was used for all participants of the surgery to answer the impression that they had about the device. The subjective impression was that the surgical smoke in contact whit the surgical team was reduced by more than 95%. CONCLUSIONS: Surgical smoke is the gaseous by-product produced by heat-generating devices in various surgical procedures. Surgical smoke may contain chemicals particles, bacteria, and viruses that are harmful and increase the risk of infection for surgeons and all the team in the operation room due to long term exposure of smoke mainly in coronavirus disease 2019 age. The adapted device described is a very simple and cheaper way to use smoke evacuators attached with the monopolar electrosurgical pen to reduce smoke exposure to the surgical team worldwide.

Carbon dioxide can eliminate operating room fires from alcohol-based surgical skin preps.

INTRODUCTION: Surgical fires are a rare event that still occur at a significant rate and can result in severe injury and death. Surgical fires are fueled by vapor from alcohol-based skin preparations in the presence of increased oxygen concentration and a spark from an energy device. Carbon dioxide (CO2) is used to extinguish electrical fires, and we sought to evaluate its effect on fire creation in the operating room. We hypothesize that CO2 delivered by the energy device will decrease the frequency of surgical fires fueled by alcohol-based skin preparations. METHODS: An ex vivo model with 15 × 15 cm section of clipped, porcine skin was used. A commercially available electrosurgical pencil with a smoke evacuation tip was connected to a laparoscopic CO2 insufflation system. The electrosurgical pencil was activated for 2 s at 30 watts coagulation mode immediately after application of alcohol-based surgical skin preparations: 70% isopropyl alcohol with 2% chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG-IPA) or 74% isopropyl alcohol with 0.7% iodine povacrylex (Iodine-IPA). CO2 was infused via the smoke evacuation pencil at flow rates from 0 to 8 L/min. The presence of a flame was determined visually and confirmed with a thermal camera (FLIR Systems, Boston, MA). RESULTS: Carbon dioxide eliminated fire formation at a flow rate of 1 L/min with CHG-IPA skin prep (0% vs. 60% with no CO2, p < 0.0001). Carbon dioxide reduced fire formation at 1 L/min (25% vs. 47% with no CO2, p = 0.1) with Iodine-IPA skin prep and fires were eliminated at 2 L/min of flow with Iodine-IPA skin prep (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Carbon dioxide can eliminate surgical fires caused by energy devices in the presence of alcohol-based skin preps. Future studies should determine the optimal technique and flow rate of carbon dioxide in these settings.

Surgical smoke and the anesthesia provider.

Surgical smoke generated by use of electrosurgical units (ESUs), lasers, and ultrasonic scalpels constitutes a physical, chemical, and biological hazard for anesthesia personnel. Inhalation of particulate matter with inflammatory consequences, pulmonary injury from products of tissue pyrolysis, exposure to mutagens and carcinogens, and the transmission of human papillomavirus (HPV) and possibly other pathogens represent a spectrum of adverse effects associated with the occupational exposure to surgical plume. While adequate operating room ventilation and use of high filtration-efficiency masks offer some protection from these conditions, the most effective method of safeguarding against surgical smoke involves its removal with a dedicated smoke evacuation device (SED). Despite the fact that many professional and governmental agencies have endorsed widespread usage of SEDs, anesthesia providers have been largely silent on this subject, with few reports within the field of anesthesiology and perioperative medicine regarding these hazards. SED use is relatively infrequent in most surgeries, and this condition reflects surgeons' reluctance to employ these devices, likely resulting from lack of education and less than optimal technology. Anesthesia societies and academic centers can serve critical roles in advocating employment of SEDs in much the same way that they have supported perioperative smoking cessation.

[Laparoscopic surgery in the COVID-19 era]. / Cirugía laparoscópica en tiempos de COVID-19.

Coexistence with COVID-19 infection (coronavirus disease 2019) in all hospital and health care settings is a current challenge of adaptation, as well as the creation of new protocols and care models. At present, there are still many unknowns about this infection, and much more unknown is the impact into the surgical field. Although evidence regarding the effect of SARS-CoV-2 and laparoscopic surgery is scarce, laparoscopy has been considered the method of choice by different scientific societies for most indications in gynaecology during the COVID-19 pandemic. This is due to the advantages over the open route. There is less morbidity and hospital stay, and in addition, as it involves autonomous and contained surgical procedures with respect to smoke release. Moreover, the instruments and the setting in the operating room mean that there can be safe distance from the surgeon and other staff to the patient. Overall, the main recommendations in laparoscopic surgery during the COVID era include: the use of Personal Protective Equipment for operating room personnel, and the adoption of safety measures to reduce CO2 exposure and surgical smoke release.

Surgical smoke and its components, effects, and mitigation: a contemporary review.

Energy-based surgical instruments produce surgical smoke, which contains harmful byproducts, such as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, volatile organic compounds, particulate matter, and viable microorganisms. The research setting has shifted from the laboratory to the operating room. However, significant heterogeneity in the methods of detection and placement of samplers, diversity in the tissue operated on, and types of surgeries tested has resulted in variability in detected levels and composition of surgical smoke. State regulation limiting surgical smoke exposure through local evacuators is expanding but has yet to reach the national regulatory level. However, most studies have not shown levels above standard established limits but relatively short bursts of high concentrations of these harmful by-products. This review highlights the limitations of the current research and unsupported conclusions while also suggesting further areas of interest that need more focus to improve Occupational Safety and Health Administration guidelines.

Implementing a Surgical Smoke Evacuation Policy and Procedure: A Quality Improvement Project.

Energy-generating surgical devices (eg, electrosurgical units, lasers) produce surgical smoke that can cause negative health effects in exposed individuals. In 2019, a review of nursing documentation at an urban teaching hospital revealed that personnel were properly evacuating surgical smoke during less than 0.5% of applicable procedures. To address the noncompliance and reduce exposure to surgical smoke, an interdisciplinary team initiated a quality improvement project to implement a surgical smoke evacuation policy for all smoke-generating procedures. The project included creation and implementation of a smoke evacuation policy, staff member education on the hazards of surgical smoke and proper evacuation device use, and acquisition of the proper smoke evacuation equipment. After instituting the policy in June 2020, results of a three-month chart audit showed that there was nursing documentation confirming personnel used energy-generating devices and the corresponding surgical smoke evacuation devices during 664 of 2,224 procedures, for a compliance rate of 30%.

Guidelines in Practice: Surgical Smoke Safety.

Surgical smoke is the vaporous and gaseous byproduct of the use of heat-producing devices on tissue. The contents of surgical smoke include harmful chemicals, viable and nonviable material, and viruses. Personnel and patients experience an unpleasant odor when smoke is not evacuated and risk developing symptoms, such as headaches, throat irritation, and dizziness. The recently updated AORN "Guideline for surgical smoke safety" provides perioperative nurses with background information on surgical smoke and ways to mitigate the hazard. This article provides an overview of the guideline and discusses recommendations for a smoke-free environment, smoke evacuation and filtration, respiratory protection, education, policies and procedures, and quality. It also includes scenarios describing specific concerns in two patient care areas. Perioperative nurses should review the guideline in its entirety and apply the recommendations to protect personnel and patients from the dangers of surgical smoke.

Laparoscopic Gastrointestinal Surgery During COVID-19 Pandemic: Single-Center Experience.

Background: COVID-19 era has put laparoscopic surgery a risk procedure because of theoretical risk of viral transmission of COVID-19. However, safe evacuation of stagnant air during laparoscopic surgery is also necessary to safeguard health care warriors. Methods: We are reporting experience of 24 laparoscopic surgeries using a closed smoke evacuation/filtration system using a ultra low-particulate air (ULPA) filtration capability (ConMed AirSeal® System) at a single center between March 22, 2020, and May 30, 2020. All surgeries were either urgent or emergency in nature. Results: Totally, 17 males and 7 females who required urgent surgery. Most common indication for laparoscopic intervention was acute cholecystitis and complications related to acute cholecystitis. Owing to the closed smoke evacuation system, low intra-abdominal pressure was maintained during all surgeries. Of all procedures, only 0.8 time per procedure, the laparoscope taken out for cleaning. Mean time for completion of surgery was 58 minutes. Compliance of surgical staff was high due to the deemed safe smoke evacuation system. Mean of postoperative pain score was low. Mean hospital stay was 4.9 days. Conclusions: We propose to use a closed smoke evacuation/filtration system with ULPA filtration capability or similar devices in each minimally invasive surgery to reduce risks of transmission as minute as possible until we have enough knowledge about the pattern of disease transmission.

Laparoscopic gynecological surgery in COVID-19 pandemic.

The major concern that has confronted surgeons during the COVID-19 pandemic is the risk of infection during surgery. So far, no studies have found SARS-CoV-2 in surgical smoke, and if it was found, whether it was infectious or not is unknown. To date, no evidence shows that respiratory viruses can be transmitted through a surgical plume or an aerosolized gas. There are various advantages of laparoscopy over laparotomy that must be kept in mind in the COVID-19 era, such as early recovery and shorter hospital stay, which can greatly help to conserve valuable hospital resources, and reduced risk of spillage of blood and body fluids, which can help to reduce transmission risk; most importantly, the distance between surgeons and between surgeons and patient is greater. Certain precautionary measures can be taken to reduce SARS-CoV-2 transmission during laparoscopy. Whenever possible, it should be the surgical option of choice.

SARS-CoV-2 Prevalence in Laparoscopic Surgery Filters. Analysis in Patients with Negative Oropharyngeal RT-qPCR in a Pandemic Context: A Cross-Sectional Study.

OBJECTIVE: Surgical societies of different specialties have lately demonstrated a growing concern regarding the potential risk of SARS-CoV-2 transmission during surgery, mainly via aerosols carrying SARS-CoV-2 particles during laparoscopy smoke evacuation. Since there is not sufficient scientific evidence to rule out this hypothesis, our study aimed to evaluate the prevalence of the appearance of SARS-CoV-2 genetic material in the in-filter membrane of the smoke filter systems, used in laparoscopic surgery, in a tertiary referral hospital during the peak phases of the pandemic. METHODS: During the highest incidence of the pandemic outbreak, 180 laparoscopic smoke evacuation systems were collected from laparoscopies performed between April 2020 and May 2021 in University General Hospital of Castellón. As part of the safety protocol established as a result of the pandemic, an oropharyngeal reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) was performed before surgery. We performed RT-qPCR tests for the detection and quantification of SARS-CoV-2 genetic material in the in-filter membranes extracted from the smoke evacuation systems. RESULTS: We found two RT-qPCR positive in-filters from a sample of 128 patients with SARS-CoV-2-negative results in their oropharyngeal RT-qPCR, i.e., 1.6% (95% CI: 0.5-5.5%). From this estimation, the predictive posterior probabilities of finding n cases of negative oropharyngeal COVID-19 patients with positive filters increases with the increasing number of surgeries performed. CONCLUSIONS: This cross-sectional study provides evidence suggesting that airborne transmission of SARS-CoV-2 particles from smoke evacuation of aerosols carrying viral particles during laparoscopy should not be ruled out.

State of the Science: A Concept Analysis of Surgical Smoke.

Surgical smoke has not been clearly defined in the literature and often is identified using surrogate terms (eg, plume). In January 2020, a literature search was performed and a principle-based concept analysis involving four general principles (epistemological, pragmatic, linguistic, and logical) was used to define surgical smoke and identify implications for perioperative personnel, patients, researchers, and policymakers. Surgical smoke is a visible plume of aerosolized combustion byproducts produced by heat-generating surgical instruments. It consists of water vapor and gaseous substances; can carry toxic chemicals, bacteria, viruses, and tumors; can obscure the surgical field; and can be inhaled. Surgical smoke has a distinctive noxious odor and can cause physical symptoms such as watery eyes and throat irritation. Perioperative leaders should promote protection from occupational harm by educating their staff members on the use of smoke evacuators to mitigate the effects of surgical smoke on perioperative patients and personnel.

A device category economic model of electrosurgery technologies across procedure types: a U.S. hospital budget impact analysis.

AIMS: The electrosurgical technology category is used widely, with a diverse spectrum of devices designed for different surgical needs. Historically, hospitals are supplied with electrosurgical devices from several manufacturers, and those devices are often evaluated separately; it may be more efficient to evaluate the category holistically. This study assessed the health economic impact of adopting an electrosurgical device-category from a single manufacturer. METHODS: A budget impact model was developed from a U.S. hospital perspective. The uptake of electrosurgical devices from EES (Ethicon Electrosurgery), including ultrasonic, advanced bipolar, smoke evacuators, and reusable dispersive electrodes were compared with similar MED (Medical Energy Devices) from multiple manufacturers. It was assumed that an average hospital performed 10,000 annual procedures 80% of which involved electrosurgery. Current utilization assumed 100% MED use, including advanced energy, conventional smoke mitigation options (e.g. ventilation, masks), and single-use disposable dispersive electrode devices. Future utilization assumed 100% EES use, including advanced energy devices, smoke evacuators (i.e. 80% uptake), and reusable dispersive electrodes. Surgical specialties included colorectal, bariatric, gynecology, thoracic and general surgery. Systematic reviews, network meta-analyses, and meta-regressions informed operating room (OR) time, hospital stay, and transfusion model inputs. Costs were assigned to model parameters, and price parity was assumed for advanced energy devices. The costs of disposables for dispersive electrodes and smoke-evacuators were included. RESULTS: The base-case analysis, which assessed the adoption of EES instead of MED for an average U.S. hospital predicted an annual savings of $824,760 ($101 per procedure). Savings were attributable to associated reductions with EES in OR time, days of hospital stay, and volume of disposable electrodes. Sensitivity analyses were consistent with these base-case findings. CONCLUSIONS: Category-wide adoption of electrosurgical devices from a single manufacturer demonstrated economic advantages compared with disaggregated product uptake. Future research should focus on informing comparisons of innovative electrosurgical devices.

Easy-to-use electrocautery smoke evacuation device for open surgery under the risk of the COVID-19 pandemic.

OBJECTIVE: This study was performed to introduce an easy method of surgical smoke evacuation for patients with confirmed or suspected COVID-19 undergoing emergency surgery. METHODS: An easy, inexpensive, protective, and practical surgical smoke evacuation device/system was developed and is herein described. RESULTS: The use of this surgical smoke evacuation device/system in open surgery is convenient and effective. It allows for easy, economic, useful, and protective surgical smoke evacuation. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 infection causes direct mortality and morbidity, and its incidence has recently increased. Protection from electrosurgery-related smoke is recommended particularly during the current pandemic. This surgical smoke evacuation device/system is easy to use and provides a convenient and effective method of smoke evacuation during both open surgery and all cauterization interventions.

Surgical Team Exposure to Cautery Smoke and Its Mitigation during Tonsillectomy.

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.

What Is the Appropriate Use of Laparoscopy over Open Procedures in the Current COVID-19 Climate?

INTRODUCTION: Among surgeons worldwide, a concern with the use of minimally invasive techniques has been raised due to a proposed risk of viral transmission of the coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19) with the creation of pneumoperitoneum. Due to this proposed concern, we sought to collect the available data and evaluate the use of laparoscopy and the risk of COVID-19 transmission. METHODS: A literature review of viral transmission in surgery and of the available literature regarding the transmission of the COVID-19 virus was performed. We additionally reviewed surgical society guidelines and recommendations regarding surgery during this pandemic. RESULTS: Few studies have been performed on viral transmission during surgery, but to date there is no study that demonstrates or can suggest the ability for a virus to be transmitted during surgical treatment whether open or laparoscopic. There is no societal consensus on limiting or restricting laparoscopic or robotic surgery; however, there is expert consensus on the modification of standard practices to minimize any risk of transmission. CONCLUSIONS: Despite very little evidence to support viral transmission through laparoscopic or open approaches, we recommend making modifications to surgical practice such as the use of smoke evacuation and minimizing energy device use among other measures to minimize operative staff exposure to aerosolized particles.

Assessment of the Environmental and Physical Ergonomic Conditions of ORs in Turkey.

This descriptive, cross-sectional study in hospital ORs in Izmir, Turkey, assessed the environmental and physical ergonomic conditions that may place perioperative personnel at risk for injury or illness. We used an ergonomic conditions and risk factor description form to collect data in 58 ORs in nine different hospitals. We identified that the noise level and general air quality in the ORs were within recommended levels. However, none of the ORs had a surgical smoke evacuation system, pressure-absorbing mats, or special equipment to facilitate patient moving and lifting. Approximately 70% of the ORs had high stools to provide short periods of rest for the surgical personnel. In addition, perioperative personnel did not wear protection to prevent intraoperative radiation exposure. These results indicate that although some environmental factors were within acceptable limits, other physical ergonomic risks were not adequately addressed, thereby placing perioperative staff members at risk for health concerns.

Surgical Smoke in Dermatology: Its Hazards and Management.

Surgical plume with vaporized tissue particles, pathogens, and toxic gases emanating during dermatosurgical procedures is an occupational hazard to the dermatosurgeon, and protective measures must be taken to prevent their inhalation. Smoke evacuators are devices that capture and filter the plume generated during electrosurgical procedures or laser procedures, thereby maintaining a safe environment for the surgical team and the patient. A smoke evacuation system should be appropriately selected depending on the need of the facility. The objective of this article is to outline the health hazards of the smoke by-product of electrosurgery and lasers and provide details about safety measures and smoke evacuation systems.