Evaluation of the chemical, cytological and bacteriological compositions of surgical smoke and evaluation of purification of smoke by ultraviolet light and various filters in laparoscopic surgeries
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18203/2349-2902.isj20230494Keywords:
Surgical smoke, Laparoscopic surgery, Purification of smoke, FiltersAbstract
Background: The present study aimed to assess the cytological, bacterial and chemical composition of laparoscopic surgical smoke and the evaluation of purification of surgical smoke by smoke purifying device containing ultraviolet (UV) light and various filters.
Methods: Sixty patients undergoing laparoscopic abdominal surgery lasting >45 min were included in this randomized controlled study. The patients were divided into two groups: group A-smoke passing through smoke purifying device and group B-smoke without passing through smoke purifying device. Sample for cytological, bacteriological and chemical analysis were collected from both the groups. The primary outcome measures were to find the cytological, bacteriological and chemical composition of surgical smoke. The secondary outcome measure was evaluation of purification of surgical smoke by smoke purifying device containing ultraviolet light and various filters. Intergroup comparison of categorical and continuous variables was done using the Chi square test/Fisher’s exact test and unpaired t test respectively.
Results: The present study shows the group A wherein smoke evacuating device containing various filters were used has no bacterial growth as well as no cells seen on cytological evaluation as compared to the group B wherein 21/30 (70.0%) cases had few lymphocytes and 3/30 (10.0%) cases had coagulase-negative Staphylococci wherein smoke evacuation device was not used. However, the chemical composition was comparable in both the groups.
Conclusions: The smoke evacuation and filtration device, filtrates and clears the smoke of cells and bacteria as it passes through it.
Metrics
References
Barrett WL, Garber SM. Surgical smoke: a review of the literature. Is this just a lot of hot air? Surg Endosc. 2003;17(6):979-87.
Sawchuk WS, Weber PJ, Lowy DR, Dzubow LM. Infectious papillomavirus in the vapor of warts treated with carbon dioxide laser or electrocoagulation: detection and protection. J Am Acad Dermatol. 1989;21(1):41-9.
Baggish MS, Poiesz BJ, Joret D, Williamson P, Refai A. Presence of human immunodeficiency virus DNA in laser smoke. Lasers Surg Med. 1991;11(3):197-203.
Oosterhuis JW, Verschueren RCJ, Eibergen R, Oldhoff J. The viability of cells in the waste products of CO2-laser evaporation of cloudman mouse melanomas. Cancer. 1982;49(1):61-7.
Hoye RC, Ketcham AS, Riggle GC. The air-borne dissemination of viable tumor by high-energy neodymium laser. Life Sci. 1967;6(2):119-25.
Gatti JE, Bryant CJ, Noone RB, Murphy JB. The mutagenicity of electrocautery smoke. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1992;89(5):781-4.
Beebe DS, Swica H, Carlson N, Palahniuk RJ, Goodale RL. High levels of carbon monoxide are produced by electro cautery of tissue during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Anesth Analg. 1993;77(2):338-41.
Capizzi PJ, Clay RP, Battey MJ. Microbiologic activity in laser resurfacing plume debris. Lasers Surg Med. 1998;23(3):172-4.
Sawchuk WS, Weber PJ, Lowy DR, Dzubow LM. Infectious papillomavirus in the vapor of warts treated with carbon dioxide laser or electrocoagulation: detection and protection. J Am Acad Dermatol. 1989;21(1):41-9.
Harvey M. Intuitive biostatistics. New York: Oxford University Press; 1995.
Dobrogowski M, Wesolowski W, Kucharska M, Paduszynska K, Dworzynska A, Szymczak W, et al. Health risk to medical personnel of surgical smoke produced during laparoscopic surgery. Int J Occup Med Environ Health. 2015;28(5):831-40.
Hensman C, Baty D, Willis RG, Cuschieri A. Chemical composition of smoke produced by high-frequency electrosurgery in a closed gaseous environment an in vitro study. Surg Endosc. 1998;12(8):1017-9.
Krones CJ, Conze J, Hoelzl F, Stumpf M, Klinge U, Moller M, et al. Chemical composition of surgical smoke produced by electrocautery, harmonic scalpel and argon beaming-a short study. Eur Surg. 2007;39(2):118-21.
Moot AR, Ledingham KM, Wilson PF, Senthilmohan ST, Lewis DR, Roake J, et al. Composition of volatile organic compounds in diathermy plume as detected by selected ion flow tube mass spectrometry. ANZ J Surg. 2007;77(1-2):20-3.
Sagar PM, Meagher A, Sobczak S, Wolff BG. Chemical composition and potential hazards of electrocautery smoke. Br J Surg. 1996;83(12):1792.
Schultz L. An analysis of surgical smoke plume components, capture, and evacuation. AORN J. 2014;99(2):289-98.
Champault G, Taffinder N, Ziol M, Riskalla H, Catheline JM. Cells are present in the smoke created during laparoscopic surgery. Br J Surg. 1997;84(7):993-5.
Ikramuddin S, Lucas J, Ellison EC, Schirmer WJ, Melvin WC. Detection of aerosolized cells carbon dioxide laparoscopy during carbon dioxide laparoscopy. J Gastrointestin Surg. 1998;2(6):580-4.
Sutinen M, Kontunen A, Karjalainen M, Kiiski J, Hannus J, Tolonen T, et al. Identification of breast tumors from diathermy smoke by differential ion mobility spectrometry. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2018;45(2):141-6.
Gioutsos K, Nguyen TL, Biber U, Enderle MD, Koss A, Kocher GJ. Surgical smoke: modern mobile smoke evacuation systems improve occupational safety in the operating theatre. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2022;34(5):775-82.
Mowbray N, Ansell J, Warren N, Wall P, Torkington J. Is surgical smoke harmful to theater staff? a systematic review. Surg Endosc. 2013;27(9):3100-7.
Georgesen C, Lipner SR. Surgical smoke: Risk assessment and mitigation strategies. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2018;79(4):746-55.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
