Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-xfwgj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-17T13:54:31.599Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

UK national survey on surgical gowning for tonsillectomy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 February 2024

Jai Thakrar ,
Ankit Patel Open the ORCID record for Ankit Patel [Opens in a new window]  and
Jonathan Joseph
Jai Thakrar
Affiliation:
School of Medicine, University College London, London, UK
Ankit Patel*
Affiliation:
ENT Department, University College London Hospital, London, UK
Jonathan Joseph
Affiliation:
ENT Department, University College London Hospital, London, UK
*
Corresponding author: Ankit Patel; Email: ankitpatel@doctors.org.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective

Tonsillectomy is a common procedure performed nationally. The personal protective equipment and surgical gowning practices used during this procedure vary widely. We compiled a survey of ENT specialists to gain a national opinion about gowning in tonsillectomy with the aim of determining whether we could make it more environmentally friendly whilst maintaining the highest safety standards.

Method

We developed a nine-question survey that was piloted prior to final implementation. The questionnaire was sent to senior registrars and consultant otolaryngologists in the UK.

Results

The survey was completed by a total of 63 ENT specialists. It was found that 82.54 per cent of clinicians would consider wearing a reusable gown that would be sterilised between each procedure.

Conclusion

Our survey suggests most ENT clinicians would consider using a more environmentally friendly surgical gown and some may even consider wearing no gown at all, although many are understandably concerned about the transmission of infection or blood splatter.

Keywords

Surgical attireprotective clothingtonsillectomyclimate change
Type
Main Article
Information
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology , First View , pp. 1 - 4
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of J.L.O. (1984) LIMITED

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.)

Footnotes

Ankit Patel takes responsibility for the integrity of the content of the paper

References

Costello, A, Abbas, M, Allen, A, Ball, S, Bell, S, Bellamy, R et al. Managing the health effects of climate change: Lancet and University College London Institute for Global Health Commission. Lancet 2009;373:1693–733CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Watts, N, Adger, WN, Agnolucci, P, Blackstock, J, Byass, P, Cai, W et al. Health and climate change: policy responses to protect public health. Lancet 2015;386:1861–914CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wise, J. COP26: Fifty countries commit to climate resilient and low carbon health systems. Br Med J 2021;375:n2734CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Haines, A, McMichael, AJ, Smith, KR, Roberts, I, Woodcock, J, Markandya, A et al. Public health benefits of strategies to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions: overview and implications for policy makers. Lancet 2009;374:2104–14CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Delivering a net zero NHS. In: https://www.england.nhs.uk/greenernhs/a-net-zero-nhs/ [12 March 2024]Google Scholar
Rizan, C, Steinbach, I, Nicholson, R, Lillywhite, R, Reed, M, Bhutta, MF. The carbon footprint of surgical operations: a systematic review. Ann Surg 2020;272:986–95CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shoham, MA, Baker, NM, Peterson, ME, Fox, P. The environmental impact of surgery: a systematic review. Surgery 2022;172:897–905CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Balci FS., Kilinc Isolation gowns in health care settings: laboratory studies, regulations and standards, and potential barriers of gown selection and use. Am J Infect Control 2016;44:104–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karim, N, Afroj, S, Lloyd, K, Oaten, LC, Andreeva, DV, Carr, C et al. Sustainable personal protective clothing for healthcare applications: a review. ACS Nano 2020;14:12313–40CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Abreu, MJ, Silva, ME, Schacher, L, Adolphe, D. Designing surgical clothing and drapes according to the new technical standards. Int J Clothing Sci Technol 2003;15:69–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rutala, WA, Weber, DJ. A review of single-use and reusable gowns and drapes in health care. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2001;22:248–57CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kilinc, FS. A review of isolation gowns in healthcare: fabric and gown properties. J Eng Fiber Fabr 2015;10:180–90Google ScholarPubMed
Vozzola, E, Overcash, M, Griffing, E. Environmental considerations in the selection of isolation gowns: a life cycle assessment of reusable and disposable alternatives. Am J Infect Control 2018;46:881–6CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Overcash, M. A comparison of reusable and disposable perioperative textiles: sustainability state-of-the-art 2012. Anesth Analg 2012;114:1055–66CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Derkay, CS. Task force on recurrent respiratory papillomas. A preliminary report. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1995;121:1386–91CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McQuerry, M, Easter, E, Cao, A. Disposable versus reusable medical gowns: a performance comparison. Am J Infect Control 2021;49:563–70CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ibbotson, S, Dettmer, T, Kara, S, Herrmann, C. Eco-efficiency of disposable and reusable surgical instruments—a scissors case. Int J Life Cycle Assess 2013;18:1137–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eckelman, M, Mosher, M, Gonzalez, A, Sherman, J. Comparative life cycle assessment of disposable and reusable laryngeal mask airways. Anesth Analg 2012;114:1067–72CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kümmerer, K, Dettenkofer, M, Scherrer, M. Comparison of reusable and disposable laparatomy pads. Int J Life Cycle Assess 1996;1:67–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sherman, JD, Raibley, LAI, Eckelman, MJ. Life cycle assessment and costing methods for device procurement: comparing reusable and single-use disposable laryngoscopes. Anesth Analg 2018;127:434–43CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wiatrak, BJ. Overview of recurrent respiratory papillomatosis. Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2003;11:433–41CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baker, N, Bromley-Dulfano, R, Chan, J, Gupta, A, Herman, L, Jain, N et al. COVID-19 solutions are climate solutions: lessons from reusable gowns. Front Public Health 2020;8:590275CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
DiGiacomo, JC, Odom, JW, Ritota, PC, Swan, KG. Cost containment in the operating room: use of reusable versus disposable clothing. Am Surg 1992;58:654–6Google ScholarPubMed
Conrardy, J, Hillanbrand, M, Myers, S, Nussbaum, GF. Reducing medical waste. AORN J 2010;91:711–21CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baykasoğlu, A, Dereli, T, Yilankirkan, N. Application of cost/benefit analysis for surgical gown and drape selection: a case study. Am J Infect Control 2009;37:215–26CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cloud, R, Favret, UB, Cunningham, T, Daley, J, Harris, LG, Kilinc-Balci, FS et al. Isolation gown use, performance and potential compliance issues identified by infection control professionals. Am J Infect Control 2012;40:e74–e5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jenkins, N. How to reduce waste by increasing use of reusable medical textiles. Supply Chain Strategies Solutions 2011;6:1–8Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Thakrar et al. supplementary material

Thakrar et al. supplementary material
Download Thakrar et al. supplementary material(File)
File 14.8 KB