Electrocautery smoke exposure and efficacy of smoke evacuation systems in minimally invasive and open surgery: a prospective randomized study

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, 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

Abstract

Worldwide, health care professionals working in operating rooms (ORs) are exposed to electrocautery smoke on a daily basis. Aims of this study were to determine composition and concentrations of electrocautery smoke in the OR using mass spectrometry. Prospective observational study at a tertiary care academic center, involving 122 surgical procedures of which 84 were 1:1 computer randomized to smoke evacuation system (SES) versus no SES use. Irritating, toxic, carcinogenic and mutagenic VOCs were observed in OR air, with some exceeding permissible exposure limits (OSHA/NIOSH). Mean total concentration of harmful compounds was 272.69 ppb (± 189 ppb) with a maximum total concentration of harmful substances of 8991 ppb (at surgeon level, no SES). Maximum total VOC concentrations were 1.6 ± 1.2 ppm (minimally-invasive surgery) and 2.1 ± 1.5 ppm (open surgery), and total maximum VOC concentrations were 1.8 ± 1.3 ppm at the OR table 'at surgeon level' and 1.4 ± 1.0 ppm 'in OR room air' away from the operating table. Neither difference was statistically significant. In open surgery, SES significantly reduced maximum concentrations of specific VOCs at surgeon level, including aromatics and aldehydes. Our data indicate relevant exposure of health care professionals to volatile organic compounds in the OR. Surgical technique and distance to cautery devices did not significantly reduce exposure. SES reduced exposure to specific harmful VOC's during open surgery.Trial Registration Number: NCT03924206 (clinicaltrials.gov).

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no competing interests.

© 2022. The Author(s).

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Flow chart overview of data analysis. *1 breath analysis was excluded for technical reasons. **In total, 17 datasets had to be excluded because of incomplete data (n = 6) or for technical reasons (n = 11).
Figure 2
Figure 2
OR set-up for measurements at surgeon level. The inlet of the mass spectrometer (I) was placed at the level of the surgeon’s (D) mouth/nose, directly above the operative field (C). (Figure created with Adobe Photoshop version 22.4.2; https://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop.html).
Figure 3
Figure 3
Face mask with dedicated connector for the mass spectrometry inlet (red circle) allowed measurement of inhaled and exhaled VOC’s during surgery.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Maximum concentrations of selected VOCs at surgeon level during open procedures and minimally invasive procedures. Each subplot compares operations in which SES was used (red) to operations in which it was not (black). p values are given. The horizontal dash marks are the concentrations measured during individual operations, and the box and whisker plots show the maximum, 75th percentile, average (circle marker), 50th percentile, and 25th percentile for all operations.

References

    1. NIOSH Study Finds Healthcare Workers’ Exposure to Surgical Smoke Still Common. November 2015. Available at . Last accessed March 5, 2021.
    1. Hill DS, O’Neill JK, Powell RJ, et al. Surgical smoke−a health hazard in the operating theatre: a study to quantify exposure and a survey of the use of smoke extractor systems in UK plastic surgery units. J. Plast. Reconstr. Aesthet. Surg. 2012;65(7):911–916. doi: 10.1016/j.bjps.2012.02.012.
    1. Alp E, Bijl D, Bleichrodt RP, et al. Surgical smoke and infection control. J. Hosp. Infect. 2006;62(1):1–5. doi: 10.1016/j.jhin.2005.01.014.
    1. Tomita Y, Mihashi S, Nagata K, et al. Mutagenicity of smoke condensates induced by CO2-laser irradiation and electrocauterization. Mutat. Res. Genet. Toxicol. 1981;89(2):145–149. doi: 10.1016/0165-1218(81)90120-8.
    1. Limchantra IV, Fong Y, Melstrom KA. Surgical smoke exposure in operating room personnel: a review. JAMA Surg. 2019;154:960–967. doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2019.2515.
    1. Okoshi K, Kobayashi K, Kinoshita K, et al. Health risks associated with exposure to surgical smoke for surgeons and operation room personnel. Surg. Today. 2015;45:957–965. doi: 10.1007/s00595-014-1085-z.
    1. Gianella M, Hahnloser D, Rey JM, et al. Quantitative chemical analysis of surgical smoke generated during laparoscopic surgery with a vessel-sealing device. Surg. Innov. 2014;21:170–179. doi: 10.1177/1553350613492025.
    1. Steege AL, Boiano JM, Sweeney MH. Secondhand smoke in the operating room? Precautionary practices lacking for surgical smoke. Am. J. Med. 2016;59:1020–1031.
    1. Kocher GJ, Sesia SB, Lopez-Hilfiker F, et al. Surgical smoke: still an underestimated health hazard in the operating theatre. Eur. J. Cardiothorac. Surg. 2019;55(4):626–631. doi: 10.1093/ejcts/ezy356.
    1. Permissible Exposure Limits – Annotated Tables. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). Available at . Last accessed March 5, 2021.
    1. OSHA’s exposure limits are dangerously out of date. Industrial Safety & Hygiene News. Available at . Last accessed March 11, 2021.
    1. Hartwig A, Arand M, Epe B, et al. Mode of action-based risk assessment of genotoxic carcinogens. Arch. Toxicol. 2020;94(6):1787–1877. doi: 10.1007/s00204-020-02733-2.
    1. Bi X, Sheng G, Feng Y, et al. Gas- and particulate-phase specific tracer and toxic organic compounds in environmental tobacco smoke. Chemosphere 61. 2005;61(10):1512–1522. doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2005.04.057.
    1. Soeteman-Hernández LG, Bos PMJ, Talhout R. Tobacco smoke–related health effects induced by 1,3-butadiene and strategies for risk reduction. Toxicol. Sci. 2013;136(2):566–580. doi: 10.1093/toxsci/kft194.
    1. Nguyen, T. L. et al. Surgical smoke: modern mobile smoke evacuation systems improve occupational safety in the operating theatre. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. ivac024. 10.1093/icvts/ivac024 (2022).
    1. O'Brien DC, Lee EG, Soo JC, et al. surgical team exposure to cautery smoke and its mitigation during tonsillectomy. Otolaryngol. Head Neck Surg. 2020;163(3):508–516. doi: 10.1177/0194599820917394.
    1. Cheng MH, Chiu CH, Chen CT, Chou HH, Pao LH, Wan GH. Sources and components of volatile organic compounds in breast surgery operating rooms. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2021;209:111855. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoenv.2020.111855.
    1. Tokuda Y, Okamura T, Maruta M, Orita M, Noguchi M, Suzuki T, Matsuki H. Prospective randomized study evaluating the usefulness of a surgical smoke evacuation system in operating rooms for breast surgery. J. Occup. Med. Toxicol. 2020;25(15):13. doi: 10.1186/s12995-020-00259-y.

Source: PubMed

3
Subscribe