Surgical smoke resulting from electrocauterization is a health risk for operating room personnel. The U.S. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health recommends the use of local exhaust ventilation such as a portable smoke evacuation system to reduce surgical smoke, but its efficiency has never been assessed under experimental conditions. In this study, particle filtration efficiencies of five commercially available smoke evacuation systems were investigated in a model operating room. Two cutting angles, the devices’ suction capacities, three unidirectional displacement flow rates, and the noise exposures were considered. Results demonstrated that portable smoke evacuation systems reduce surgical smoke up to 99% under optimal conditions. A cutting angle of 45°, the device’s maximum suction capacity, and a unidirectional displacement flow rate of 10,500 m³/hr were advantageous. Sound levels ranged between 51–69 dBA and exceeded recommended threshold limits, if used with medium or maximum suction capacity. Hence, portable smoke evacuation systems are beneficial and are recommended. However, a combination with general unidirectional room ventilation and a strict limitation of the use of electrocauterization is strongly advised.

Nes, depending on the kind of induction for general anesthesia, the used airway device, and the type of airflow system in the operating room. Furthermore, sevoflurane baselines and typical peaks during general anesthesia were determined. METHODS: Measurements were performed with the LumaSense Photoacoustic Gas Monitor. As we detected the gas monitor’s cross-sensitivity reactions between sevoflurane and disinfectants, regression lines for customarily used disinfectants during surgery (Cutasept®, Octeniderm®) and their alcoholic components were initially analyzed. Hospital sevoflurane concentrations were thereafter measured during elective surgery in 119 patients. The amount of inhaled sevoflurane by anesthesiologists was estimated according to mVA = cVA × V × t × ρVA aer. RESULTS: Induction of general anesthesia stopped after tracheal intubation with the patient’s expiratory sevoflurane concentration of 1.5%. Thereby, inhalational inductions (INH) caused higher sevoflurane concentrations than IV inductions (mean [SD]: JOURNAL/asag/04.03/00000539-201512000-00023/math_23MM1/v/2021-01-04T012812Z/r/image-tiff [ppm] INH 2.43 ±1.91 versus IV 0.62 ± 0.33, P < 0.001; mVA [mg] INH 1.95 ± 1.54 versus IV 0.30 ± 0.22, P < 0.001). The use of laryngeal mask airway (LMA™) led to generally higher sevoflurane concentrations in the anesthesiologists’ breathing zones than tracheal tubes ( JOURNAL/asag/04.03/00000539-201512000-00023/math_23MM2/v/2021-01-04T012812Z/r/image-tiff [ppm] tube 0.37 ± 0.16 versus LMA™ 0.79 ± 0.53, P = 0.009; JOURNAL/asag/04.03/00000539-201512000-00023/math_23MM3/v/2021-01-04T012812Z/r/image-tiff [ppm] tube 1.91 ± 0.91 versus LMA™ 2.91 ± 1.81, P = 0.057; mVA [mg] tube 1.47 ± 0.64 versus LMA™ 2.73 ± 1.81, P = 0.019). Sevoflurane concentrations were trended higher during surgery in operating rooms with turbulent flow (TF) air-conditioning systems compared with laminar flow (LF) air-conditioning systems ( JOURNAL/asag/04.03/00000539-201512000-00023/math_23MM4/v/2021-01-04T012812Z/r/image-tiff [ppm] TF 0.29 ± 0.12 versus LF 0.13 ± 0.06, P = 0.012; mVA [mg/h] TF 1.16 ± 0.50 versus LF 0.51 ± 0.25, P = 0.007). CONCLUSIONS: Anesthesiologists are chronically exposed to trace concentrations of sevoflurane during work. Inhalational inductions, LMA™, and TF air-conditioning systems in particular are associated with higher sevoflurane exposure. However, the amount of inhaled sevoflurane per day was lower than expected, perhaps because concentrations in previous measurements could be overestimated (10%–15%) because of the cross-sensitivity reaction....

Article: The impact of the anesthetic conserving device on occupational exposure to isoflurane among intensive care healthcare professionals - Minerva Anestesiologica 2018 January;84(1):25-32 - Minerva Medica - Journals