Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-sxzjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-20T03:46:24.163Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Wound Ventilation With Ultraclean Air for Prevention of Direct Airborne Contamination During Surgery

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

Mikael Persson  and
Jan van der Linden
Mikael Persson*
Affiliation:
Division of Medical Engineering, Department of Laboratory Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden
Jan van der Linden*
Affiliation:
Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery & Anesthesiology, Karolinska Institutet, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden
*
Division of Medical Engineering, Department of Laboratory Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, Karolinska University Hospital/Huddinge, SE-14186 Stockholm, Sweden
M85, Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery & Anesthesiology, Karolinska Institutet, Karolinska University Hospital/Huddinge, SE-14186 Stockholm, Sweden
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Background and Objective:

Despite the novelties in operating room ventilation, airborne bacteria remain an important source of surgical wound contamination. An ultraclean airflow from the ceiling downward may convey airborne particles from the surgical team into the wound, thus increasing the risk of infection. Therefore, similar ventilation from the wound upward should be considered. We investigated the effect of wound ventilation on the concentration of airborne particles in a wound model during simulated surgery.

Design:

Randomized experimental study simulating surgery with a wound cavity model.

Setting:

An operating room of a university hospital ventilated with ultraclean air directed downward.

Interventions:

Particles 5 um and larger were counted with and without a 5-cm deep cavity and with and with-out the insufflation of ultraclean air.

Results:

With the surgeon standing upright, no airborne particles could be detected in the wound model. In contrast, during simulated operations, the median number of particles per 0.1 cu ft reached 18 (25th and 75th percentiles, 12 and 22.25) in the model with a cavity and 15.5 (25th and 75th percentiles, 14 and 21.5) without. With a cavity, wound ventilation markedly reduced the median number of particles to 1 (range, 0 to 1.25; P< .001).

Conclusions:

To protect a surgical wound against direct airborne contamination, air should be directed away from the wound rather than toward it. This study provides supportive evidence to earlier studies that operating room ventilation with ultraclean air is imperfect during surgical activity and that wound ventilation may be a simple complement. Further clinical trials are needed.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 25 , Issue 4 , April 2004 , pp. 297 - 301
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America 2004

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.Gottrup, F. Prevention of surgical-wound infections. N Engl J Med 2000;342:202–204.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2.Essex-Lopresti, M. Operating theatre design. Lancet 1999;353:1007–1010.Google Scholar
3.Friberg, B, Friberg, S, Burman, LG. Correlation between surface and air counts of particles carrying aerobic bacteria in operating rooms with turbulent ventilation: an experimental study. J Hosp Infect 1999;42:61–68.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4.Verkkala, K, Eklund, A, Ojajarvi, J, Tiittanen, L, Hoborn, J, Makela, P. The conventionally ventilated operating theatre and air contamination control during cardiac surgery: bacteriological and particulate matter control garment options for low level contamination. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 1998;14:206–210.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5.Taylor, GJ, Bannister, GC. Infection and interposition between ultra-clean air source and wound. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1993;75:503–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6.Whyte, W, Hodgson, R, Tinkler, J. The importance of airborne bacterial contamination of wounds. J Hosp Infect 1982;3:123–135.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7.Alexakis, PG, Feldon, PG, Wellisch, M, Richter, RE, Finegold, SM. Airborne bacterial contamination of operative wounds. West J Med 1976;124:361–369.Google ScholarPubMed
8.Noble, WC, Lidwell, OM, Kingston, D. The size distribution of airborne particles carrying micro-organisms. Journal of Hygiene (Cambridge) 1963;61:385–391.Google Scholar
9.Noble, WC. Dispersal of skin microorganisms. Br J Dermatol 1975;93:477–485.Google Scholar
10.Mackintosh, CA, Lidwell, OM, Towers, AG, Marples, RR. The dimensions of skin fragments dispersed into the air during activity. J Hyg (Land) 1978;81:471–479.Google Scholar
11.Letts, RM, Doermer, E. Conversation in the operating theater as a cause of airborne bacterial contamination. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1983;65:357–362.Google Scholar
12.Howorth, FH. Prevention of airborne infection during surgery. Lancet 1985;1:386–388.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13.Sciple, GW, Riemensnider, DK, Schleyer, CAJ. Recovery of microorganisms shed by humans into a sterilized environment. Appl Microbiol 1967;15:1388.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14.Lidwell, OM, Lowbury, EJ, Whyte, W, Blowers, R, Stanley, SJ, Lowe, D. Airborne contamination of wounds in joint replacement operations: the relationship to sepsis rates. J Hosp Infect 1983;4:111–131.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15.Persson, M, van der Linden, J. De-airing of a cardiothoracic wound cavity model with carbon dioxide: theory and comparison of a gas dif fuser with conventional tubes. J Cardiothorac Vase Anesth 2003;17:329–335.Google Scholar
16.Svenarud, P, Persson, M, van der Linden, J. Intermittent or continuous carbon dioxide insufflation for de-airing of the cardiothoracic wound cavity? An experimental study with a new gas diffuser. Anesth Analg 2003;96:321–327.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17.Svenarud, P, Persson, M, van der Linden, J. Efficiency of a gas diffuser and influence of suction in carbon dioxide de-airing of a cardiothoracic wound cavity model. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2003;125:1043–1049.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18.van der Linden, J, Persson, M. A gauze sponge cannot act as a gas diffuser in cardiac surgery when it gets wet. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2003;125:1178–1179.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
19.Persson, M, Svenarud, P, van der Linden, J. Which is the optimal device for carbon dioxide de-airing of the cardiothoracic wound and how should it be positioned? J Cardiothorac Vase Anesth. In press.Google Scholar
20.Friberg, B, Lindgren, M, Karlsson, C, Bergstrom, A, Friberg, S. Mobile zoned/exponential LAF screen: a new concept in ultraclean air technology for additional operating room ventilation. J Hosp Infect 2002;50:286–292.Google Scholar
21.Charnley, J, Eftekhar, N. Postoperative infection in total prosthetic replacement arthroplasty of the hip-joint with special reference to the bacterial content of the air of the operating room. Br J Surg 1969;56:641–649.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
22.Lidwell, OM, Lowbury, EJ, Whyte, W, Blowers, R, Stanley, SJ, Lowe, D. Effect of ultraclean air in operating rooms on deep sepsis in the joint after total hip or knee replacement: a randomised study. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed) 1982;285:10–14.Google Scholar
23.Salvati, EA, Robinson, RP, Zeno, SM, Koslin, BL, Brause, BD, Wilson, PD Jr. Infection rates after 3175 total hip and total knee replacements performed with and without a horizontal unidirectional filtered air-flow system. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1982;64:525–535.Google Scholar
24.Whyte, W. Sterility assurance and models for assessing airborne bacterial contamination. Journal of Parenteral Science & Technology 1986;40:188–197.Google Scholar
25.Whyte, W, Hambraeus, A, Laurell, G, Hoborn, J. The relative importance of the routes and sources of wound contamination during general surgery: Part II. Airborne. J Hosp Infect 1992;22:41–54.Google Scholar
26.Charnley, J. Operating-theatre ventilation. Lancet 1970;1:1053–1054.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
27.Fox, C, Whyte, A. Theatre air sampling: ignorance is bliss! J Hosp Infect 1995;30:80–82.Google Scholar
28.Fox, C, Whyte, AS. Theatre air sampling: once a year is not enough. J Hosp Infect 1996;32:319–320.Google Scholar
29.Streeter, VL, Wylie, BE, Bedford, KW. External flows. In: Fluid Mechanics, ed. 9. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1998:327–328.Google Scholar
30.Dharan, S, Pittet, D. Environmental controls in operating theatres. J Hosp Infect 2002;51:79–84.Google Scholar
31.Quraishi, ZA, Blais, FX, Sottile, WS, Adler, LM. Movement of personnel and wound contamination. AORN J 1983;38:146–147, 150–156.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed