Aerosol mitigation in upper airway surgery

IF 16.4 1区化学 Q1 CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY

Accounts of Chemical Research Pub Date : 2024-11-01 DOI:10.1016/j.ijporl.2024.112153

Herrmann BW , Choi MH , Vance ME , Pickett-Nairne K , Cooper EH , Friedman NR

{"title":"Aerosol mitigation in upper airway surgery","authors":"Herrmann BW , Choi MH , Vance ME , Pickett-Nairne K , Cooper EH , Friedman NR","doi":"10.1016/j.ijporl.2024.112153","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Aerosol generating procedures pose a risk for SARS-CoV-2 transmission, and comprise a large percentage of cases performed in otolaryngology. An optimal method to mitigate this hazard does not currently exist. This study examined methods to mitigate surgical aerosols from the operating room.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>Utilizing an intubation manikin (Nasco Healthcare) and particle counter (Sensirion SPS30), a series of electrocautery-induced aerosols containing particles 0.5–10 μm in diameter were measured. Three different mitigation strategies were tested: intraoral (Yankauer, suction Bovie pencil (SBP)), extraoral (smoke evacuator system (SES)), and their combinations.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>SES was effective compared to controls, but inferior to intraoral mitigation strategies (p < 0.0001). Combining SES with any intraoral mitigation strategy did not enhance mitigation efficiency, and in some comparisons led to inferior performance (SBP vs SBP-SES, p < 0.05). Comparison of intraoral mitigation strategies found no statistically significant differences between techniques, although SBP was found to have the lowest overall level of particles.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Intraoral suction techniques are recommended for aerosol mitigation. Extraoral SES use alone is insufficient for aerosol mitigation, and may be counterproductive when used with intraoral suction techniques. Further research is needed to determine the optimal mitigation strategy for intraoperative surgical aerosols.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":1,"journal":{"name":"Accounts of Chemical Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":16.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Accounts of Chemical Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165587624003070","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"化学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Aerosol generating procedures pose a risk for SARS-CoV-2 transmission, and comprise a large percentage of cases performed in otolaryngology. An optimal method to mitigate this hazard does not currently exist. This study examined methods to mitigate surgical aerosols from the operating room.

Methods

Utilizing an intubation manikin (Nasco Healthcare) and particle counter (Sensirion SPS30), a series of electrocautery-induced aerosols containing particles 0.5–10 μm in diameter were measured. Three different mitigation strategies were tested: intraoral (Yankauer, suction Bovie pencil (SBP)), extraoral (smoke evacuator system (SES)), and their combinations.

Results

SES was effective compared to controls, but inferior to intraoral mitigation strategies (p < 0.0001). Combining SES with any intraoral mitigation strategy did not enhance mitigation efficiency, and in some comparisons led to inferior performance (SBP vs SBP-SES, p < 0.05). Comparison of intraoral mitigation strategies found no statistically significant differences between techniques, although SBP was found to have the lowest overall level of particles.

Conclusions

Intraoral suction techniques are recommended for aerosol mitigation. Extraoral SES use alone is insufficient for aerosol mitigation, and may be counterproductive when used with intraoral suction techniques. Further research is needed to determine the optimal mitigation strategy for intraoperative surgical aerosols.

查看原文本刊更多论文

上气道手术中的气溶胶缓解。

背景：产生气溶胶的手术有传播 SARS-CoV-2 的风险，在耳鼻喉科手术中占很大比例。目前还没有减轻这种危害的最佳方法。本研究探讨了减少手术室手术气溶胶的方法：方法：利用插管人体模型（Nasco Healthcare）和粒子计数器（Sensirion SPS30），测量了一系列电灼诱发的气溶胶，其中含有直径为 0.5-10 μm 的粒子。测试了三种不同的缓解策略：口内（Yankauer、吸入式博维笔（SBP））、口外（排烟系统（SES））以及它们的组合：结果：与对照组相比，SES 是有效的，但不如口内缓解策略（p 结论：建议使用口内吸痰技术：建议使用口内抽吸技术缓解烟雾。单独使用口外 SES 不足以缓解气溶胶，与口内吸引技术一起使用可能会适得其反。要确定术中手术气溶胶的最佳缓解策略，还需要进一步的研究。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Accounts of Chemical Research 化学-化学综合

CiteScore

31.40

自引率

1.10%

发文量

312

审稿时长

2 months

期刊介绍： Accounts of Chemical Research presents short, concise and critical articles offering easy-to-read overviews of basic research and applications in all areas of chemistry and biochemistry. These short reviews focus on research from the author’s own laboratory and are designed to teach the reader about a research project. In addition, Accounts of Chemical Research publishes commentaries that give an informed opinion on a current research problem. Special Issues online are devoted to a single topic of unusual activity and significance. Accounts of Chemical Research replaces the traditional article abstract with an article "Conspectus." These entries synopsize the research affording the reader a closer look at the content and significance of an article. Through this provision of a more detailed description of the article contents, the Conspectus enhances the article's discoverability by search engines and the exposure for the research.