Comparison of airborne bacteria in rooms with turbulent mixing ventilation vs unidirectional airflow during the preparation of surgical instruments – an experimental study

IF 3.9 3区医学 Q1 INFECTIOUS DISEASES

Journal of Hospital Infection Pub Date : 2025-04-18 DOI:10.1016/j.jhin.2025.04.005

E. Torbjörnsson , C. Olivecrona , A. Lööf Ngo , A. Tammelin

{"title":"Comparison of airborne bacteria in rooms with turbulent mixing ventilation vs unidirectional airflow during the preparation of surgical instruments – an experimental study","authors":"E. Torbjörnsson , C. Olivecrona , A. Lööf Ngo , A. Tammelin","doi":"10.1016/j.jhin.2025.04.005","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Surgical instruments could act as carriers of pathogens causing surgical site infections. Different types of ventilation systems in operating theatres are used to prevent contamination of sterile fields and instruments by airborne bacteria. The results are inconclusive concerning which ventilation system creates the best conditions.</div></div><div><h3>Aim</h3><div>To investigate levels of airborne bacteria during the preparation of surgical instruments in preparation rooms with turbulent mixing ventilation (TMV) and unidirectional airflow (UDAF).</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>This study was conducted in a newly built operating theatre at Södersjukhuset, Stockholm, Sweden. Colony-forming units (CFU)/m<sup>3</sup> were measured in a preparation room with TMV with an intake of air of either 700 L/s or 1200 L/s, and a preparation room with UDAF with an intake of air of 700 L/s.</div></div><div><h3>Findings</h3><div>Mean CFU/m<sup>3</sup> air ranged from 0 to 104.5 in the preparation room with TMV and airflow of 700 L/s. When airflow was adjusted to 1200 L/s, mean CFU/m<sup>3</sup> air ranged from 0 to 5.5. In the preparation room with UDAF, mean CFU/m<sup>3</sup> air ranged from 0 to 7. With airflow of 700 L/s, the difference between the two rooms was significant (<em>P</em><0.006). When the airflow in the preparation room with TMV was increased to 1200 L/s, there was no significant difference between TMV and UDAF (<em>P</em>=0.443).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>This experimental study of the differences in levels of airborne bacteria in preparation rooms during preparation of surgical instruments showed that, with airflow of 700 L/s, the preparation room with UDAF had significantly lower CFU/m<sup>3</sup> air than the preparation room with TMV.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":54806,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Hospital Infection","volume":"161 ","pages":"Pages 13-18"},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Hospital Infection","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0195670125000933","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"INFECTIOUS DISEASES","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Surgical instruments could act as carriers of pathogens causing surgical site infections. Different types of ventilation systems in operating theatres are used to prevent contamination of sterile fields and instruments by airborne bacteria. The results are inconclusive concerning which ventilation system creates the best conditions.

Aim

To investigate levels of airborne bacteria during the preparation of surgical instruments in preparation rooms with turbulent mixing ventilation (TMV) and unidirectional airflow (UDAF).

Methods

This study was conducted in a newly built operating theatre at Södersjukhuset, Stockholm, Sweden. Colony-forming units (CFU)/m³ were measured in a preparation room with TMV with an intake of air of either 700 L/s or 1200 L/s, and a preparation room with UDAF with an intake of air of 700 L/s.

Findings

Mean CFU/m³ air ranged from 0 to 104.5 in the preparation room with TMV and airflow of 700 L/s. When airflow was adjusted to 1200 L/s, mean CFU/m³ air ranged from 0 to 5.5. In the preparation room with UDAF, mean CFU/m³ air ranged from 0 to 7. With airflow of 700 L/s, the difference between the two rooms was significant (P<0.006). When the airflow in the preparation room with TMV was increased to 1200 L/s, there was no significant difference between TMV and UDAF (P=0.443).

Conclusion

This experimental study of the differences in levels of airborne bacteria in preparation rooms during preparation of surgical instruments showed that, with airflow of 700 L/s, the preparation room with UDAF had significantly lower CFU/m³ air than the preparation room with TMV.

查看原文本刊更多论文

手术器械制备过程中湍流混合通风与单向通风室内空气细菌的比较实验研究。

背景：手术器械可能是引起手术部位感染（SSI）病原体的载体。手术室采用不同的通风系统来防止无菌区和仪器被空气中的细菌污染。关于哪种通风系统能创造最佳条件，结果尚无定论。目的：研究湍流混合通风（TMV）和单向气流（UDAF）制备室中手术器械制备过程中空气中细菌的水平。方法：研究在瑞典斯德哥尔摩Södersjukhuset新建的手术室病房进行。CFU/m3的水平在一个使用TMV的制备室测量，进气量为700L/s或1200L/s，使用UDAF提供700L/s的制备室。结果：在有TMV、气流700L/s的制备室，CFU/m3空气平均值为0 ~ 104.5。当空气流量调整为1200L/s时，平均值为0-5.5。在UDAF制备室，CFU/m3空气平均值为0 ~ 7。当空气流量为700L/s时，两室间的空气细菌水平差异具有显著性(p)结论：本实验研究了制备室中手术器械制备过程中空气细菌水平的差异，结果表明，700L/s空气流量下UDAF的CFU/m3水平明显低于TMV。

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

Journal of Hospital Infection 医学-传染病学

CiteScore

12.70

自引率

5.80%

发文量

271

审稿时长

19 days

期刊介绍： The Journal of Hospital Infection is the editorially independent scientific publication of the Healthcare Infection Society. The aim of the Journal is to publish high quality research and information relating to infection prevention and control that is relevant to an international audience. The Journal welcomes submissions that relate to all aspects of infection prevention and control in healthcare settings. This includes submissions that: provide new insight into the epidemiology, surveillance, or prevention and control of healthcare-associated infections and antimicrobial resistance in healthcare settings; provide new insight into cleaning, disinfection and decontamination; provide new insight into the design of healthcare premises; describe novel aspects of outbreaks of infection; throw light on techniques for effective antimicrobial stewardship; describe novel techniques (laboratory-based or point of care) for the detection of infection or antimicrobial resistance in the healthcare setting, particularly if these can be used to facilitate infection prevention and control; improve understanding of the motivations of safe healthcare behaviour, or describe techniques for achieving behavioural and cultural change; improve understanding of the use of IT systems in infection surveillance and prevention and control.