CE

ON

LIN

E

Surgical Smoke

An Online Continuing Education Activity

Sponsored By

Funding Provided By

Welcome to

Surgical Smoke(An Online Continuing Education Activity)

CONTINUING EDUCATION INSTRUCTIONSThis educational activity is being offered online and may be completed at any time.

Steps for Successful Course Completion

To earn continuing education credit, the participant must complete the following steps:1. Read the overview and objectives to ensure consistency with your own learning

needs and objectives. At the end of the activity, you will be assessed on the attainment of each objective.

2. Review the content of the activity, paying particular attention to those areas that reflect the objectives.

3. Complete the Test Questions. Missed questions will offer the opportunity to re-read the question and answer choices. You may also revisit relevant content.

4. For additional information on an issue or topic, consult the references.5. To receive credit for this activity complete the evaluation and registration form. 6. A certificate of completion will be available for you to print at the conclusion.

Pfiedler Enterprises will maintain a record of your continuing education credits and provide verification, if necessary, for 7 years. Requests for certificates must be submitted in writing by the learner.

If you have any questions, please call: 720-748-6144.

CONTACT INFORMATION:

© 2016All rights reserved

Pfiedler Enterprises, 2170 South Parker Road, Suite 125, Denver, CO 80231www.pfiedlerenterprises.com Phone: 720-748-6144 Fax: 720-748-6196

3

OVERVIEW Thermal destruction of tissue produced by use of a laser or electrosurgical unit during surgical procedures, exposes operating room personnel (including surgeons, perioperative nurses, surgical technologists, and anesthetists) and patients to surgical smoke containing potentially hazardous breathable aerosols and cell fragments. This online continuing education activity has been designed to assist perioperative professionals deliver safe and effective patient care when smoke evacuation is used during operative and invasive procedures. The topics presented will include: what we know about surgical smoke; the best defenses against surgical smoke; recommended U.S. practices, guidelines, standards and regulations as well as international recommendations/guidelines on surgical smoke; and suggested steps for implementing a smoke evacuation program.

LEARNER OBJECTIVES Upon completion of this continuing education activity, the participant should be able to:

1. Discuss the contents, distribution, and risks of surgical smoke.2. Describe the best defenses against surgical smoke.3. Review the practices, guidelines, standards, and recommendations for evacuation of

surgical smoke in the US.4. Identify the recommendations/guidelines around the world for evacuation of surgical

smoke.5. Outline a plan to develop a surgical facility smoke evacuation program.

INTENDED AUDIENCE Surgeons, perioperative nurses, certified surgical technologists, anesthesia providers, and other health-care team members who want to provide a safe environment of care by using smoke evacuation and filtration during surgical, non-invasive procedures, and endoscopic procedures.

CREDIT/CREDIT INFORMATION State Board Approval for Nurses Pfiedler Enterprises is a provider approved by the California Board of Registered Nursing, Provider Number CEP14944, for 2.0 contact hours.

Obtaining full credit for this offering depends upon attendance, regardless of circumstances, from beginning to end. Licensees must provide their license numbers for record keeping purposes.

The certificate of course completion issued at the conclusion of this course must be retained in the participant’s records for at least four (4) years as proof of attendance.

RELEASE AND ExPIRATION DATEThis continuing education activity was planned and provided in accordance with accreditation criteria. This material was originally produced in August 2016 and can no longer be used after August 2018 without being updated; therefore, this continuing education activity expires August 2018.

4

DISCLAIMERPfiedler Enterprises does not endorse or promote any commercial product that may be discussed in this activity.

SUPPORTFunds to support this activity have been provided by Medtronic.

AUThORS/PLANNING COMMITTEE/REVIEWERCynthia C. Carlock Boulder, COCoordinator Medical Affairs Operations/ReviewerMedtronic

Julia A. Kneedler, EdD, RN Denver, COProgram Manager/Planning CommitteePfiedler Enterprises

Judith I. Pfister, MBA, RN Denver, COProgram Manager/Planning CommitteePfiedler Enterprises Melinda T. Whalen, BSN, RN, CEN Denver, COProgram Manager/ReviewerPfiedler Enterprises

Carol J. Wilcox, MT (ASCP), MA, BS Denver, COConsultant/Planning CommitteePfiedler Enterprises

DISCLOSURE OF RELATIONShIPS WITh COMMERCIAL ENTITIES FOR ThOSE IN A POSITION TO CONTROL CONTENT FOR ThIS ACTIVITy Pfiedler Enterprises has a policy in place for identifying and resolving conflicts of interest for individuals who control content for an educational activity. Information below is provided to the learner, so that a determination can be made if identified external interests or influences pose potential bias in content, recommendations or conclusions. The intent is full disclosure of those in a position to control content, with a goal of objectivity, balance and scientific rigor in the activity. For additional information regarding Pfiedler Enterprises’ disclosure process, visit our website at: http://www. pfiedlerenterprises.com/disclosure.

Disclosure includes relevant financial relationships with commercial interests related to the subject matter that may be presented in this continuing education activity. “Relevant financial relationships” are those in any amount, occurring within the past 12 months that create a conflict of interest. A commercial interest is any entity producing, marketing, reselling, or distributing health care goods or services consumed by, or used on, patients.

5

Activity Authors/ Planning Committee/Reviewer Cynthia C. Carlock Employee of grant provider

Julia A. Kneedler, EdD, RN No conflict of interest

Judith I. Pfister, MBA, RN No conflict of interest

Melinda T. Whalen, BSN, RN, CEN No conflict of interest

Carol J. Wilcox, MT (ASCP), MA, BS No conflict of interest

PRIVACy AND CONFIDENTIALITy POLICyPfiedler Enterprises is committed to protecting your privacy and following industry best practices and regulations regarding continuing education. The information we collect is never shared for commercial purposes with any other organization. Our privacy and confidentiality policy is covered at our website, www.pfiedlerenterprises.com, and is effective on March 27, 2008.

To directly access more information on our Privacy and Confidentiality Policy, type the following URL address into your browser: http://www.pfiedlerenterprises.com/privacy-policy. In addition to this privacy statement, this Website is compliant with the guidelines for internet-based continuing education programs.

The privacy policy of this website is strictly enforced.

6

Contact InformationIf site users have any questions or suggestions regarding our privacy policy, please contact us at:

Phone: 720-748-6144Email: registrar@pfiedlerenterprises.comPostal Address: 2170 South Parker Road, Suite 125 Denver, Colorado 80231Website URL: http://www.pfiedlerenterprises.com

7

SURGICAL SMOKE: WhAT WE KNOWSurgical smoke has been identified in the patient-care environment wherever surgical and/or invasive procedures are performed.1 Surgical smoke has been described as part of the airborne chemical soup that is present during the care of perioperative patients. The air quality in operating rooms around the world has been a concern for over three decades. The progression is summarized from 1975 to 1995 (Table 1).2

Table 1 – Evolution of Surgical Smoke Concerns

 

7  

SURGICAL SMOKE: WHAT WE KNOW Surgical smoke has been identified in the patient‐care environment wherever surgical and/or invasive procedures are done.1 Surgical smoke has been described as part of  the airborne chemical soup that is present during the care of perioperative patients. The air quality in operating  rooms around the world has been a concern for over three decades. The progression is summarized from 1975 to 1995 (Table 1).2                       

As discussion of the contents of surgical smoke continued  in the 1990s, the Association of periOperative Registered Nurses (AORN) hosted its first multidisciplinary round‐table discussion on smoke in January 1996. This was an historic  event that brought together experts from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), ECRI, researchers, surgeons, registered nurses and health‐care manufacturers. The outcome of the round table was  chronicled in Giordano’s 1996 article, “Don’t be a Victim of Surgical Smoke.”3

A result of the conference was that  in September 1996, NIOSH sent out a hazard‐control alert to all hospitals in the United States recommending that smoke from lasers and electrosurgical units be evacuated  and filtered (Figure 1).4 

Figure 1 – Control of Smoke From Laser/Electric Surgical  Procedures (see Appendix A) 

 

Control of Smoke From Laser/Electric Surgical Procedures

1975 Mihashi, et al, determine 77% of particulate matter from laser vaporization is less than 1.1 microns in size – in the inspirable range

1985 NIOSH publishes Hazard Evaluation report which states there is a potential hazard from exposure to smoke generated by electrosurgery knives

1988 Baggish, et al, compare effects of filtered and unfiltered smoke on lungs of rats; those breathing unfiltered smoke show pulmonary congestion with bronchial hyperplasia

1988 NIOSH issues Health Hazard report warning of potential health hazard from smoke produced during laser procedures

1988 Garden, et al, extract intact viral DNA from plume generated using CO2 laser during vaporization of bovine fibropapillomavirus

1989 Tomita, et al, compare hazards of laser and electrosurgery as being equivalent to smoking unfiltered cigarettes

1991 Report published about Norwegian surgeon who develops laryngeal papillomatosis following treating genetically similar lesions in his patients

1993 Ott, et al, demonstrate laparoscopic smoke produces increased carboxyhemoglobin and methemoglobin levels in patients, which decreases oxygen-carrying capacity

1995 Hoglan indicates many hazardous chemicals are contained in surgical smoke, including benzene, toluene, acrolein and formaldehyde

Adapted from Alexander’s Care of the Patient in Surgery, Chapter 7, Surgical Modalities2

As discussion of the contents of surgical smoke continued in the 1990s, the Association of periOperative Registered Nurses (AORN) hosted its first multidisciplinary round-table discussion on the issue of surgical smoke in January 1996. This was an historic event that brought together experts from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), Emergency Care Research Institute (ECRI), researchers, surgeons, registered nurses, and health-care manufacturers. The outcome of the round table was chronicled in Giordano’s 1996 article, “Don’t be a Victim of Surgical Smoke.”3 A result of the conference was that in September 1996, NIOSH sent out a hazard-control alert to all hospitals in the United States recommending that smoke from lasers and electrosurgical units be evacuated and filtered (Figure 1).4

8

Figure 1 – Control of Smoke from Laser/Electric Surgical Procedures (see Appendix A)

 

7  

SURGICAL SMOKE: WHAT WE KNOW Surgical smoke has been identified in the patient‐care environment wherever surgical and/or invasive procedures are done.1 Surgical smoke has been described as part of  the airborne chemical soup that is present during the care of perioperative patients. The air quality in operating  rooms around the world has been a concern for over three decades. The progression is summarized from 1975 to 1995 (Table 1).2                       

As discussion of the contents of surgical smoke continued  in the 1990s, the Association of periOperative Registered Nurses (AORN) hosted its first multidisciplinary round‐table discussion on smoke in January 1996. This was an historic  event that brought together experts from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), ECRI, researchers, surgeons, registered nurses and health‐care manufacturers. The outcome of the round table was  chronicled in Giordano’s 1996 article, “Don’t be a Victim of Surgical Smoke.”3

A result of the conference was that  in September 1996, NIOSH sent out a hazard‐control alert to all hospitals in the United States recommending that smoke from lasers and electrosurgical units be evacuated  and filtered (Figure 1).4 

Figure 1 – Control of Smoke From Laser/Electric Surgical  Procedures (see Appendix A) 

 

Control of Smoke From Laser/Electric Surgical Procedures

1975 Mihashi, et al, determine 77% of particulate matter from laser vaporization is less than 1.1 microns in size – in the inspirable range

1985 NIOSH publishes Hazard Evaluation report which states there is a potential hazard from exposure to smoke generated by electrosurgery knives

1988 Baggish, et al, compare effects of filtered and unfiltered smoke on lungs of rats; those breathing unfiltered smoke show pulmonary congestion with bronchial hyperplasia

1988 NIOSH issues Health Hazard report warning of potential health hazard from smoke produced during laser procedures

1988 Garden, et al, extract intact viral DNA from plume generated using CO2 laser during vaporization of bovine fibropapillomavirus

1989 Tomita, et al, compare hazards of laser and electrosurgery as being equivalent to smoking unfiltered cigarettes

1991 Report published about Norwegian surgeon who develops laryngeal papillomatosis following treating genetically similar lesions in his patients

1993 Ott, et al, demonstrate laparoscopic smoke produces increased carboxyhemoglobin and methemoglobin levels in patients, which decreases oxygen-carrying capacity

1995 Hoglan indicates many hazardous chemicals are contained in surgical smoke, including benzene, toluene, acrolein and formaldehyde

Adapted from Alexander’s Care of the Patient in Surgery, Chapter 7, Surgical Modalities2

AORN continued to raise awareness about the hazards of surgical smoke by hosting a second conference on smoke in February 1997. The second meeting brought together experts from the same groups as the 1996 meeting, but added representatives from the American Society of Anesthesiology (ASA), the American College of Surgeons (ACS), the American Nurses Association (ANA) and the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations (JCAHO). The goal was to include as many organizations as possible to build consensus on best methods to affect change in the regulation of surgical smoke.5 The most important outcome of the second smoke conference was the development of a guidance document from OSHA that was intended to support evacuation of surgical smoke. The detailed 20-page document was sent out to reviewers in 1998 in anticipation of publication, and was similar in scope to the 1996 NIOSH alert.6 By 2000, the guidelines had not been published. In July 2000, OSHA announced the delay was due to a need for more evidence.7

With no government guidelines published, concern and controversy surrounding surgical smoke and air quality in the operating room continues. The impact of work environment on the health of caregivers is of ever-increasing concern, and is now discussed as well by professional organizations in other countries. In 2003 AORN first published the Position Statement on Workplace Safety. The position statement notes:

“The workplace safety culture is of increasing importance as workloads increase, due to the effects of the nursing shortage, increased patient acuity and an emphasis on higher productivity…The multiple occupational hazards that create a risk of personal injury that perioperative nurses face in the workplace are both physical and psychosocial.”

The position statement lists the hazards faced by perioperative professionals and among those is smoke plume.8

9

WhAT IS SURGICAL SMOKE?Surgical smoke is called by a variety of names, including cautery smoke, electrosurgery smoke, diathermy plume, plume, aerosols, bio-aerosols, vapor, and air contaminants. Surgical smoke can be seen and smelled (Figure 2).

Surgical smoke is the result of the interaction of tissue and mechanical tools and/or heat-producing equipment, such as those that are used for dissection and hemostasis. Both the visible and the odorous components of surgical smoke are the gaseous byproducts of the disruption and vaporization of tissue protein and fat.9

Figure 2 – Electrosurgery Pyrolysis of human Tissue Produces Smoke

hOW IS SMOKE PRODUCED?The primary mechanism to achieve hemostasis and tissue dissection during surgical procedures is with heat-producing devices. These include electrosurgery units, lasers, ultrasonic devices, high-speed drills, burrs, and saws. All of the devices produce heat, which allows the surgeon to achieve the desired tissue effect. The most common device used is the electrosurgery unit. Electrosurgery uses high-frequency electrical current, called radiofrequency current. The two basic waveforms are cut, also called vaporization, and coagulation, also referred to as fulguration. The cut waveform is a continuous (undampened), low-voltage modality. The continuous current flow heats cell contents to the boiling point of 100 degrees Celsius, thereby exploding the cell wall.10 The vaporization releases the cellular fluid as steam, and simultaneously spews the cell contents into the air forming surgical smoke.

The coagulation waveform is a high-voltage, interrupted (dampened) wave pattern. The interruption in the wave pattern is a rest period in the delivery of the electrical current, causing a more gradual rise in the temperature of the cellular fluid. Above 90 degrees Celsius cellular liquid evaporates and proteins are denatured, losing structural integrity. Once the temperature reaches 100 degrees Celsius the tissue is carbonized (Figure

10

3). The depth of necrosis in the tissue is more superficial, unless the active electrode is held in contact with the tissue, which is called desiccation. This method of delivering electrosurgery current will result in greater thermal tissue effect.11 Desiccation using the coagulation current is used by many practitioners, and the carbonized tissue contributes to the cellular debris released into the air.

Figure 3 – Temperature and Tissue Damage

 

 

HOW IS SM

The primarproducing saws. All ocommon dradiofrequreferred tocontinuouscell wall.10

into the ai

The coagupattern is athe cellulastructural depth of  nwhich is caeffect.11 Dcontribute             

Figure 3 – T

Lasers are tAmplificatproduced. is monochwavelengtCoherent wvary with tspecific tissthe  impactLasers prodcellular vapdetermine 

MOKE PRODU

ry mechanismdevices. Thesef the devices pdevice used is tuency current.o as fulguratios  current flow0 The vaporizar forming surg

lation wavefora rest period inar fluid. Above integrity. Onc

necrosis in thealled  desiccatioDesiccation uses to the  cellul

Temperature and T

the second moion by StimulaThis energy is romatic,  collimh or color. Collwaves are ordehe wavelengthsue effects amt site. The degrduce  high heaporization  releed by the type o

65

60

UCED? 

 to achieve hee  include electproduce heat, the electrosurg The two basic on. The cut wavw heats cell conation releases tgical smoke. 

rm is a high‐von the delivery 90 degrees Cee the temperatissue is moreon. This methoing the coagular debris relea

Tissue Damage 

ost common heated Emission oa concentratemated and cohimated  laser berly and travel h, beam fluencemong the variouree of adjacentat — 100 degreeases steam anof laser being  u

>100°C 

 

5°C–90°C 

0°C–65°C 

45°C 

37°C 

33°C 

mostasis androsurgery unitwhich allowsgery unit. Electwaveforms arveform is a conntents to the bthe cellular flu

oltage, interrupof the electricelsius cellular lture reaches 1e superficial, uod of deliveringlation currentased into the a

eat‐producing of Radiation), wd beam of ligherent. Monochbeams are wavin the  same de, tissue color,us types of laset tissue damagees to 1,000 dend cell contentsused and the ty

Vaporization

Smoke 

Drying 

 

9 

tissue dissectits, lasers, ultrasthe surgeon totrosurgery usee cut,  also callntinuous (undaoiling point ofuid as steam, a

pted  (dampenal current, cauiquid evapora100 degrees Cenless the activg electrosurgeis used by manair. 

device  used bywhich refers tot. It is distinguhromatic light ives that are pairection, providconsistency a

ers.12  Surroune depends onegrees Celsiuss.13 The charaype of tissue.

ion during surgsonic devices,o achieve the des high‐frequenled vaporizatioampened),  lowf 100 degrees Cand simultaneo

ned) wave pattusing a more gates and proteielsius the tissuve electrode isery current wilny practitione

y surgeons. Laso the process inished from anis composed orallel and can bding power to and water contnding tissue is athe duration os — that  boilscteristics of th

gical procedurhigh‐speed drdesired tissue ncy electrical  con, and coaguw‐voltage modCelsius, therebously spews th

tern. The interrradual rise in tins are denatuue is carbonizes held in contal result in grears, and the car

ser is an acronn which light eordinary light 

of photons of thbe focused  ththe laser beamtent. This allowalso heated beof the laser beaand explodes te  cellular matt

res is with heatrills, burrs  and effect. The mocurrent, calledlation, also dality. The by exploding the cell content

ruption in the wthe temperatured, losing ed (Figure 3). Tct with the tissater thermal tisbonized tissue

nym (Light energy is beam becausehe same rough a lens. m. Thermal  effews for selectiveecause it bordeam exposure. the cells. This ter are 

t‐d ost  

he ts 

wave ure of 

The sue, ssue e 

e it 

ects and 

ers 

Lasers are the second most common heat-producing device used by surgeons. Laser is an acronym (Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation), which refers to the process in which light energy is produced. This energy is a concentrated beam of light. It is distinguished from an ordinary light beam because it is monochromatic, collimated and coherent. Monochromatic light is composed of photons of the same wavelength or color. Collimated laser beams are waves that are parallel and can be focused through a lens. Coherent waves are orderly and travel in the same direction, providing power to the laser beam. Thermal effects vary with the wavelength, beam fluence, tissue color, consistency and water content. This allows for selective and specific tissue effects among the various types of lasers.12 Surrounding tissue is also heated because it borders the impact site. The degree of adjacent tissue damage depends on the duration of the laser beam exposure. Lasers produce high heat — 100 degrees to 1,000 degrees Celsius — that boils and explodes the cells. This cellular vaporization releases steam and cell contents.13 The characteristics of the cellular matter are determined by the type of laser being used and the type of tissue.

Lasers and electrosurgery units both work by using high thermal energy, and both release cell contents. When the particulate matter of both laser and electrosurgical smoke are compared they look very similar, as identified by ECRI (Figure 4). Because of the similarities, facility policies on smoke evacuation should be the same for electrosurgery units and for lasers.14

Resting Epidermis

11

Figure 4 – Comparison of Contents of ESU and Laser Smoke

 

10  

Lasers and electrosurgery units both work by using high thermal energy, and both release cell contents. When the  particulate matter of both laser and electrosurgical smoke are compared they look very similar, as identified by ECRI  (Figure 4). Because of the similarities, facility policies on  smoke evacuation should be the same for 

electrosurgery  units and for lasers.14                                                                                                                                        Figure 4 – Comparison of Contents of ESU and Laser Smoke 

Ultrasonic devices have gained popularity as dissection and hemostasis tools. Ultrasonic dissection removes tissue by rapid mechanical action. It does not produce sound waves. It is called ultrasonic because vibrations that occur are from 23‐55 kHz, and are above the sonic range of human hearing. 

Ultrasonic aspirators have hollow tips. With a hollow tip, only the tissue in direct contact with the circumferential edge or core of the tip is impacted. Minimal thermal damage occurs because the heat generated by the tip is conducted away via the irrigation fluid. The tip  irrigation does produce a fine mist, but the surgical field is continuously cleared by the suction at the tip. 

Ultrasonic scalpels use solid tips or blades. When the tips  vibrate, thermal heat is produced by the edge of the blade.  This technology allows surgeons to coagulate and divide  tissue. The tip vibrates at a frequency of 55,000 times per  second, stimulating collagen molecules to denature and form a coagulum.15 The motion of the tip produces a vapor, which because of lower tip temperatures, could carry  infectious  aerosols.16 

Both types of ultrasonic devices produce rapid mechanical motion with transducers within the handpieces. Two types of transducers are used — piezoelectric crystals and magnetostrictive  laminations. The  piezoelectric ceramic transducer is composed of a series of ceramic disks mounted together. When electrical energy is applied,  the disks change shape and cause the tip to vibrate. The ceramic discs are air cooled, so the handpiece is lighter. It  is also more fragile, and may break if dropped. 

The magnetostrictive transducer has 22 to 24 nickel alloy  laminations that are layered together. The electrical energy  stimulates the laminations to lengthen and shorten, creating tip excursion. The laminations do get hot, but the heat is dissipated via an internal closed continuous water  cooling system. Magnetostrictive transducers are capable of higher amplitudes and are more durable. 

Often overlooked sources of air contamination in the operating room are bone saws, drills and other high‐speed electrical devices used to dissect and resect tissue. These  instruments produce heat by rapidly rotating or sawing, thereby disrupting tissue. Because the saw blades, drills  and burrs do heat up, irrigation is often dripped over them to reduce the heat buildup. The mechanical motion of the saw, drill or burr, combined with irrigation 

  Coag Mode

          

 

Log

(p/m

Lpe

rµm

)

Ultrasonic devices have gained popularity as dissection and hemostasis tools. Ultrasonic dissection removes tissue by rapid mechanical action. It does not produce sound waves. It is called ultrasonic because vibrations that occur are from 23-55 kHz, and are above the sonic range of human hearing. Ultrasonic aspirators have hollow tips. With a hollow tip, only the tissue in direct contact with the circumferential edge or core of the tip is impacted. Minimal thermal damage occurs because the heat generated by the tip is conducted away via the irrigation fluid. The tip irrigation does produce a fine mist, but the surgical field is continuously cleared by the suction at the tip.

Ultrasonic scalpels use solid tips or blades. When the tips vibrate, thermal heat is produced by the edge of the blade. This technology allows surgeons to coagulate and divide tissue. The tip vibrates at a frequency of 55,000 times per second, stimulating collagen molecules to denature and form a coagulum.15 The motion of the tip produces a vapor, which because of lower tip temperatures, could carry infectious aerosols.16

Both types of ultrasonic devices produce rapid mechanical motion with transducers within the handpieces. Two types of transducers are used — piezoelectric crystals and magnetostrictive laminations. The piezoelectric ceramic transducer is composed of a series of ceramic disks mounted together. When electrical energy is applied, the disks change shape and cause the tip to vibrate. The ceramic discs are air cooled, so the handpiece is lighter. It is also more fragile, and may break if dropped.

The magnetostrictive transducer has 22 to 24 nickel alloy laminations that are layered together. The electrical energy stimulates the laminations to lengthen and shorten, creating tip excursion. The laminations do get hot, but the heat is dissipated via an internal closed continuous water cooling system. Magnetostrictive transducers are capable of higher amplitudes and are more durable.

12

Often overlooked sources of air contamination in the operating room are bone saws, drills and other high-speed electrical devices used to dissect and resect tissue. These instruments produce heat by rapidly rotating or sawing, thereby disrupting tissue. Because the saw blades, drills and burrs do heat up, irrigation is often dripped over them to reduce the heat buildup. The mechanical motion of the saw, drill or burr, combined with irrigation sends a mist of aerosols into the surgical field. Research has shown that blood-containing aerosols have the potential of invading the breathing zones for scrub team members during power tool use.17 Further research raises the issue of viable bloodborne pathogens, which may be contained in power tool aerosols.18

CONTENTS OF SURGICAL SMOKEThe contents of surgical smoke have been described at the very least as being a nuisance, and at worst carcinogenic. Since Mihashi, et al raised concerns about the contents of surgical smoke in 1975, researchers and practitioners have continued to look at smoke and what is in it, and document findings.2 One point yet to be decided is if any smoke is safe. Indeed, some staunchly believe there is no such thing as safe smoke. It seems prudent to err on the side of safety, and protect patients and health-care workers from any potential dangers from surgical smoke. Anderson stated it best in 2005 by asking a provocative question:

“In hindsight, will health-care professionals be embarrassed about their cavalier attitudes toward surgical smoke as they once were with cigarette smoke?”19

There has long been interest in defining the exact risk of surgical smoke. Designing research studies has been challenging. Reviewing the work of researchers is a good starting point to assess potential risks and formulate plans to protect against hazards.

Surgical smoke is made up of 95 percent water or steam, and 5 percent cellular debris in the form of particulate material. The 5 percent particulate matter is composed of chemicals, blood and tissue particles, viruses and bacteria.20

Determining aerosolized particle size is important. Particles that remain airborne are smaller than 100 micrometers in diameter. Particles that are 5.0 micrometers or larger are deposited on the walls of the nose, pharynx, trachea and bronchus. Particles that are less than 2.0 micrometers in size are deposited in the bronchioles and alveoli — the gas exchange region of the lungs (Figure 5).21 By comparison, an average human hair is about 200 micrometers in size. Viruses are the smallest in size, ranging from about 0.01-0.3 micrometers (Table 2).22

13

Table 2 – Typical Particle Sizes22

 

11  

sends a mist of aerosols into the surgical field. Research has shown that blood‐containing aerosols have the potential of invading  the breathing zones for scrub team members during power tool use.17 Further research raises the issue of viable bloodborne pathogens, which may be contained in power  tool aerosols.18 

CONTENTS OF SURGICAL SMOKE 

The contents of surgical smoke have been described at the  very least as being a nuisance, and at worst carcinogenic. Since Mihashi, et al raised concerns about the contents of surgical smoke in 1975, researchers and practitioners have continued to look at smoke and what is in it, and document findings.2 One point yet to be decided is if any smoke is safe. Indeed, some staunchly believe there is no  such thing as safe smoke. It seems prudent to err on the side of safety, and protect patients and health‐care workers  from any potential dangers from surgical smoke. Anderson stated it best in 2005 by asking a provocative question: 

“In hindsight, will health‐care professionals be embarrassed about their cavalier attitudes toward surgical  smoke as they once were with cigarette smoke?”19 

There has long been interest in defining the exact risk of surgical smoke. Designing research studies has been challenging. Reviewing the work of researchers is a good starting point to assess potential risks and formulate plans to protect against hazards. 

Surgical smoke is made up of 95 percent water or steam,  and 5 percent cellular debris in the form of particulate material. The 5 percent particulate matter is composed of  chemicals, blood and tissue particles, viruses and bacteria.20 

Determining aerosolized particle size is important. Particles  that remain airborne are smaller than 100 micrometers in diameter. Particles that are 5.0 micrometers or larger are  deposited on the walls of the nose, pharynx, trachea and bronchus. Particles that are less than 2.0 micrometers in  size are deposited in the bronchioles and alveoli — the gas exchange region of the lungs (Figure 5).21 By comparison,  an average human hair is about 200 micrometers in size. Viruses are the smallest in size, ranging from about 0.01‐0.3 micrometers (Table 2).22 

Particle Types  Micrometers Viruses HIV HPV 

0.01 – 0.3 0.18 0.045 

Tobacco Smoke  0.1 – 3.0 Surgical Smoke  0.1 – 5.0 Bacteria  0.3 – 15.0 Lung‐damaging Dust  0.5 – 5.0 Smallest Visable Particle  20 

Table 2 – Typical Particle Sizes22 

 DesCoteaux and colleagues in Canada used a cascade impactor to collect smoke according to particle size and weight.23 They used an electrosurgery unit and analyzed the smoke with electron microscopy. They demonstrated  the presence of breathable aerosols and cell fragments in the smoke.23 

Taravella and colleagues in Colorado set out to determine  if respirable‐size particles were present following laser  use. Particles collected were measured with an electron microscope and had a mean diameter of 0.22‐0.056 micrometers. The researchers concluded the particles were  in the respirable range, but the study could not make a  determination about the health hazards of breathing the particles.21 

DesCoteaux and colleagues in Canada used a cascade impactor to collect smoke according to particle size and weight.23 They used an electrosurgery unit and analyzed the smoke with electron microscopy. They demonstrated the presence of breathable aerosols and cell fragments in the smoke.23

Taravella and colleagues in Colorado set out to determine if respirable-size particles were present following laser use. Particles collected were measured with an electron microscope and had a mean diameter of 0.22-0.056 micrometers. The researchers concluded the particles were in the respirable range, but the study could not make a determination about the health hazards of breathing the particles.21

Miller and associates found that long time exposure to fine particulate air pollution is associated with an increased incidence of cardiovascular disease and death among postmenopausal women. When one compares this research to the average age of a perioperative nurse, concern about inhaling polluted air in surgery is greatly elevated.24

Of the surgical smoke or plume generated in the operating room, each technology produces a different size particle. The smaller the particle size, the further it can travel, which can impact people circulating during a procedure as well as those scrubbed.

The chemical composition of surgical smoke has been well documented. Barrett and Garber identified a long list of chemicals present in surgical smoke (Table 3).16 Two of the chemicals of concern were acrylonitrile and hydrogen cyanide. Acrylonitrile is a volatile, colorless chemical that can be absorbed through the skin and lungs. Acrylonitrile liberates hydrogen cyanide. Hydrogen cyanide is toxic, colorless and can also be absorbed into the lungs, through the skin and via the gastrointestinal tract.16

14

Figure 5 – Particle Sizes in the Respiratory Tree

Hollmann and colleagues in Switzerland conducted experiments to determine the chemical composition of surgical smoke. Using laser photoacoustic spectroscopy they identified 11 different gases that could be classified as toxic and mutagenic. Of concern was the furfural present in surgical smoke, which was found at a level of 12 times higher than recommended occupational exposure limits. Furfural is a solvent that acts as a strong irritant affecting the eyes, mucous membranes, lungs and the central nervous system. The researchers noted the “potential danger from toxic and mutagen gas compounds, particulate material and partly virulent virus DNA cannot be overemphasized.”26

Benzene is another chemical identified in surgical smoke. The OSHA sets permissible exposure limits

(PELs) to protect workers from the hazards associated with inhaling benzene. Protection from inhaling benzene is mandated by OSHA because benzene is documented as being a trigger for leukemia.6

15

Table 3 – Chemical Contents of Surgical Smoke

 

12  

Phenol Propene 2‐Propylene nitrile  Pyridine Pyrrole Styrene  Toluene 1‐Undecene Xylene 

Miller and associates found that long time exposure to fine particulate air pollution is associated with an increased incidence of cardiovascular disease and death among postmenopausal women. When one compares this research to the average age of a perioperative nurse,  concern about inhaling polluted air in surgery is greatly elevated.24 

Of the surgical smoke or plume generated in the operating  room, each technology produces a different size particle. The smaller the particle size, the further it can travel, which  can impact people circulating during a procedure as well as those scrubbed. 

The chemical composition of surgical smoke has been well documented. Barrett and Garber identified a long list of chemicals present in surgical smoke (Table 3).16 Two of the chemicals of concern were acrylonitrile and hydrogen cyanide. Acrylonitrile is a volatile, colorless chemical that can be absorbed through the skin and lungs. Acrylonitrile liberates hydrogen cyanide. Hydrogen cyanide is toxic, colorless and can also be absorbed into the lungs, through  the skin and via the gastrointestinal tract.16                   Figure 5 – Particle Sizes in Respiratory Tree 

Hollmann and colleagues in Switzerland conducted experiments to determine the chemical composition of surgical smoke. Using laser photoacoustic spectroscopy  they identified 11 different gases that could be classified as toxic and mutagenic. Of concern was the furfural present in surgical smoke, which was found at a level of 12 times higher than recommended occupational exposure limits. Furfural is a solvent that acts as a strong irritant affecting the eyes, mucous membranes, lungs   and the central nervous system. The researchers noted  the “potential danger from toxic and mutagen gas compounds, particulate material and partly virulent virus DNA cannot be overemphasized.”26 

Benzene is another chemical identified in surgical smoke. The OSHA sets permissible exposure limits 

(PELs) to protect workers from the hazards associated with inhaling  benzene. Protection from inhaling benzene is mandated by OSHA because benzene is documented as being a trigger for leukemia.6  

            Table 3‐Chemical Contents of Surgical Smoke Awareness of some of the chemical  components of smoke, recommended exposure limits and  the associated 

Acetonitrile AcetyleneAcrolein Acrylonitrile

BenzeneBenzonitrileButadiene Butene 3‐Butenenitrile 

Creosol 1‐Decene 

EthaneEtheneEthylene

Furfural 

 Indole 

  

  

Awareness of some of the chemical components of smoke, recommended exposure limits and the associated health effects is an important consideration in the education of surgical staff members. Along with the OSHA PELs, NIOSH sets relative exposure limits (RELs), and the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) sets threshold limit values (TLVs) of toxic chemicals (Table 4).

Table 4 – Chemical components of smoke and associated health risks 25 

13  

Table 4 – Chemical components of smoke and associated health risks 25

In addition to the chemical components of surgical smoke, concerns have been raised about the presence of blood particles, virus and bacteria in the smoke particulate matter. Plappert and associates in Germany designed a study to evaluate the cytotoxic, genotoxic, clastogenic and mutagenic potential of the byproducts of laser pyrolysis of tissue.27 After subjecting the aerosols to several scientific laboratory tests, the research team reported, “we were able to prove that the particulate fraction of laser pyrolysis aerosols originating from biological tissues undoubtedly have to be classified as cytotoxic, genotoxic, clastogenic and mutagenic.”27 They also recommended that operating room personnel should be protected from the health hazard of surgical smoke.27

To answer the question of blood-containing aerosols in smoke and whether or not the blood particles can invade the breathing zones of operating room personnel, Jewett, Heinsohn and colleagues conducted two studies. Both used a bone saw, drills and an electrosurgery unit in both the cut and coagulation mode. The staff wore 10-stage, low-pressure cascade impactor respirators to determine aerosol particle size distribution and Hemastix to determine hemoglobin content. Both studies revealed all the tools which were tested produced blood-containing aerosols in the respirable range of less than 5 micrometers (Table 5).17, 28

Chemical OShA PEL ACGIh TVL NIOSh REL Associated health EffectsAcetaldehyde 200 ppm STEL: 25 ppm

A3 carcinogenCarcinogenicwithout further association

Eye, skin, and respiratory irritant. Clinical exposure to vapor also include erythema, coughing, pulmonary edema, narcosis. May be teratogenic. Irritation can be expected after 50 ppm for 15 minutes. May facilitate uptake of other atmospheric contaminants by bronchial epithelium.

Acrolein 0.1 ppm (0.25mg/m³)

5 mg/m³ Eye, skin, upper respiratory tract irritant. May increase blood- clotting time, liver and kidney damage.

Acetonitrile 40 ppm 40 ppm Nose irritant, throat asphyxiant. Has caused liver and kidneydamage in animal models

Benzene 1 ppm3 mg/m³

10 ppm32 mg/m³

0.1 mg/m³ Headache, weakness, appetite loss, fatigue. May cause bonemarrow damage, injury to blood forming tissue from chronic low-level exposure. Inhaled intermittently over one year may alter nutritional status and gross metabolism.

Formaldehyde 0.75 ppm(2.5 mg/m³)

15 min.STEL: 2 ppmA3 carcinogen

Eye, nose, throat and respiratory system irritant. Exposure may cause cough and bronchospasm. Sensitizer. Shown to cause nasal tumors in rats.

PolyaromaticHydrocarbons(PAHs)

Napthalene10 ppm

Napthalene10 ppmSTEL: 15 ppm

Absorbed via respiratory tract. Ocular respiratory irritant. Wide range of sensitivity. Effects noted in very low doses. Exposure likely occurs via particle inhalation. Styrene and acrolein may increase inhalation effect.

Styrene 100 ppmCeiling:200 ppmPeak: 600 ppm(5 min)

213 ng/m³ =50 ppm

Respiratory irritant. Short-term vapor exposure in animal studies found damage to lining of nose.

Toluene 200 ppmCeiling:300 ppmPeak:500 ppm

50 ppm 100 ppmSTEL:150 ppm

Well absorbed via inhalation. Vapors irritate eyes, respiratory tract. Extensive documentation of effects in animal models, many related to CNS function. High levels associated with teratogenesis.

Xylene 100 ppmSTEL:150 ppm

100 ppm Well absorbed via respiratory tract. Respiratory tract irritation begins at 200 ppm. Chronic exposure associated with reversible changed in red and white blood cell counts and increases in platelet counts.

16

In addition to the chemical components of surgical smoke, concerns have been raised about the presence of blood particles, virus and bacteria in the smoke particulate matter. Plappert and associates in Germany designed a study to evaluate the cytotoxic, genotoxic, clastogenic and mutagenic potential of the byproducts of laser pyrolysis of tissue.27 After subjecting the aerosols to several scientific laboratory tests, the research team reported, “we were able to prove that the particulate fraction of laser pyrolysis aerosols originating from biological tissues undoubtedly have to be classified as cytotoxic, genotoxic, clastogenic and mutagenic.”27 They also recommended that operating room personnel should be protected from the health hazard of surgical smoke.27

To answer the question of blood-containing aerosols in smoke and whether or not the blood particles can invade the breathing zones of operating room personnel, Jewett, Heinsohn and colleagues conducted two studies. Both used a bone saw, drills and an electrosurgery unit in both the cut and coagulation mode. The staff wore 10-stage, low-pressure cascade impactor respirators to determine aerosol particle size distribution and Hemastix to determine hemoglobin content. Both studies revealed all the tools which were tested produced blood-containing aerosols in the respirable range of less than 5 micrometers (Table 5).17, 28

ExPOSURE TO BLOOD CONTAINING AREOSOL

Table 5 – Inspirable Blood Particles in Smoke28

 

14  

ExPOSURE TO BLOOD CONTAINING AREOSOL

Procedure MonitoredTime(min)

Imp.Stage hemastix

hb ConcernEst.Inhaled

Anthroplasty Surgeon 171 1 1+ 131

Anthroplasty Surgeon 159 2 trace 84Anthroplasty Surgeon 137 2 3+ 85

Aneurysm Surgeon 198 2 3+ 60

Table 5 – Inspirable Blood Particles in Smoke28

The potential of transmitting virus and bacteria to health-care workers has long received the attention ofresearchers. The topic of human papillomavirus (HPV) and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infectivity was looked at by a number of groups in the late 1980s and 1990s:

• Garden et al, demonstrated the presence of intact viral DNA in smoke29• Ferenczy and associates sampled 110 patients and smoke evacuator contents following surgery and found one in

five of the canisters contained HPV DNA30• Sawchuk and colleagues studied human papillomavirus in wart vapor following laser and electrosurgery treatment;

they found HPV DNA in five out of eight laser samples, and in four out of seven electrosurgery samples31• Baggish and associates sampled tubing used to evacuate smoke from HIV-infected tissue and found positive

samples present in the tubing32

In 1998 Capizzi and colleagues looked at the viability of bacteria during laser resurfacing done on 13 patients. Specimens were collected and tested following the procedure. Of 13 bacterial cultures, five resulted in coagulase-negative Staphylococcus growth. Of the five, one had growth of Corynebacterium and one showed Neisseria growth. The researchers concluded there was potential for transmitting bacteria to operating room personnel, and that smoke evacuation should be used.33

Garden and associates studied viral disease transmission through exposure to smoke aerosols. They exposed bovinepapillomavirus to carbon dioxide laser. The smoke was collected and then reinoculated onto the skin of the cows. The collected plume was tested and the presence of papillomavirus DNA was positive. They found that tumors developed at the laser-plume inoculated sites. Histology and chemical analyses revealed that the tumors were infected with the same type of virus as was in the laser smoke. The researchers concluded they had proved that laser plume could transmit disease.34

hOW IS SMOKE DISTRIBUTED?There is no doubt that the smell of surgical smoke can permeate an entire surgical suite. In spite of the pervasive smell, a common belief is that the scrubbed members of the surgical team are at greatest risk from inhaling the smoke. Brandon and Young have conducted studies to determine the particle size and distribution of smoke in the operating room. Reported results reveal that without smoke removal, particle concentration can increase from a baseline of about 60,000 particles per cubic foot, to about 1 million particles per cubic foot within five minutes after the electrosurgery unit is activated. The concentration levels remain elevated throughout the use of the ESU. The concentrations were also documented as high throughout the operating room, indicating everyone in the operating room is subjected to particle concentrations comparable to those of scrubbed team members. They further documented that it took about 20 minutes for the operating room ventilation to return the room to baseline levels.35

The results from a 2002 study by Nicola and associates in Brazil help explain how all surgical team members could beexposed to similar levels of surgical smoke. They measured the speed and distance that smoke particles were ejected from lased animal skin. Laser Doppler Velocimetry (LDV) measured the speed of smoke particles to be in the range of 9 to 18 meters

The potential of transmitting virus and bacteria to health-care workers has long received the attention of researchers. The topic of human papillomavirus (HPV) and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infectivity was looked at by a number of groups in the late 1980s and 1990s:

• Garden et al, demonstrated the presence of intact viral DNA in smoke29

• Ferenczy and associates sampled 110 patients and smoke evacuator contents following surgery and found one in five of the canisters contained HPV DNA30

• Sawchuk and colleagues studied human papillomavirus in wart vapor following laser and electrosurgery treatment; they found HPV DNA in five out of eight laser samples, and in four out of seven electrosurgery samples31

17

• Baggish and associates sampled tubing used to evacuate smoke from HIV-infected tissue and found positive samples present in the tubing32

In 1998 Capizzi and colleagues looked at the viability of bacteria during laser resurfacing done on 13 patients. Specimens were collected and tested following the procedure. Of 13 bacterial cultures, five resulted in coagulase-negative Staphylococcus growth. Of the five, one had growth of Corynebacterium and one showed Neisseria growth. The researchers concluded there was potential for transmitting bacteria to operating room personnel, and that smoke evacuation should be used.33

Garden and associates studied viral disease transmission through exposure to smoke aerosols. They exposed bovine papillomavirus to carbon dioxide laser. The smoke was collected and then reinoculated onto the skin of the cows. The collected plume was tested and the presence of papillomavirus DNA was positive. They found that tumors developed at the laser-plume inoculated sites. Histology and chemical analyses revealed that the tumors were infected with the same type of virus as was in the laser smoke. The researchers concluded they had proved that laser plume could transmit disease.34

hOW IS SMOKE DISTRIBUTED?There is no doubt that the smell of surgical smoke can permeate an entire surgical suite. In spite of the pervasive smell, a common belief is that the scrubbed members of the surgical team are at greatest risk from inhaling the smoke. Brandon and Young have conducted studies to determine the particle size and distribution of smoke in the operating room. Reported results reveal that without smoke removal, particle concentration can increase from a baseline of about 60,000 particles per cubic foot, to about 1 million particles per cubic foot within five minutes after the electrosurgery unit is activated. The concentration levels remain elevated throughout the use of the ESU. The concentrations were also documented as high throughout the operating room, indicating everyone in the operating room is subjected to particle concentrations comparable to those of scrubbed team members. They further documented that it took about 20 minutes for the operating room ventilation to return the room to baseline levels.35

The results from a 2002 study by Nicola and associates in Brazil help explain how all surgical team members could be exposed to similar levels of surgical smoke. They measured the speed and distance that smoke particles were ejected from lased animal skin. Laser Doppler Velocimetry (LDV) measured the speed of smoke particles to be in the range of 9 to 18 meters per second. Once the particles were set in motion, the residual kinetic energy could send the particles about 0.87 meters from the skin surface.36

Tanpowpong and Koytong in Bangkok, Thailand, compared suspended particulate matter in an office and laser smoke particles in a laser operating room. Suspended particles in the 15, 10 and 2.5 micrometer size were measured using a laser diode dust monitor. All three particle sizes were within safe levels when measured in the office. The suspended particles in the operating room before laser use were higher than measurements in the office. The suspended particulate matter during and after laser use was much higher, and deemed dangerous to both patients and operating room personnel.37

18

RISKS TO PERIOPERATIVE PERSONNELWhat are the risks of inhaling surgical smoke? Are the potential dangers cumulative? A specific link between exposure to surgical smoke and adverse health effects to perioperative personnel has not been made. There is anecdotal information, and an abundance of recommendations. There are no mandatory regulations in the United States that surgical smoke must be evacuated, but the voluntary standards from professional organizations are clear that there is potential danger in continuously inhaling substances present in surgical smoke. Alp and colleagues from The Netherlands developed a list of potentials risks (Table 6). The symptoms and potential risks identified are consistent with reports from health-care professionals and researchers over the last two decades.38

Table 6 – Surgical Smoke Inhalation Symptoms38 

15  

Table 6 – Surgical Smoke Inhalation Symptoms38

As early as 1988, Baggish and colleagues conducted animal research establishing a link between inhaling unfiltered surgical smoke and pulmonary changes. Laboratory rats were exposed to unfiltered smoke and smoke filtered through a smoke evacuator. The rats that breathed the unfiltered smoke showed pathological pulmonary changes. Those that breathed smoke that was passed through an ultra-low penetration air filter (ULPA) showed no pathological changes.39 A study by Wenig and colleagues in 1993 supports Baggish’s work on animal pulmonary changes, such as alveolar congestion andemphysema.40

Concerns have been documented among practitioners about the possibility of contracting infections from inhaling the viral components of surgical smoke. A 44-year-old laser surgeon in Norway developed laryngeal papillomatosis. In situ DNA hybridization of his tumor biopsies revealed human papillomavirus DNA types consistent with the anogenital condylomas lased from his patients.41 Information about the potential risks is readily available. Still, we ask for more proof. Cunnington at the Leicester Royal Infirmary in the United Kingdom insightfully observes

“Evidence may be a long time coming — as with smoking— [while] staff are literally absorbing the risk.”42

RISKS TO PATIENTSSurgical smoke can be a risk for patients during laparoscopic surgery. A study from University of Minnesota measured levels of carbon monoxide inside the peritoneal cavity during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. The study found that carbon monoxide was present in the abdomen five minutes after the use of electrosurgery at a median concentration of 345 parts per million (ppm). By the end of the procedure the median concentration had risen to 475 ppm. This was in excess of the 35 ppm upper limit for a one-hour exposure set by the Environmental Protection Agency.43

Danger of smoke inside the abdomen has also been documented at Mercer University School of Engineering. As smoke is produced inside the abdomen, it is absorbed through the peritoneal membrane. The subsequentresult in the patient’s bloodstream is an increase in the methemoglobin and carboxyhemoglobin concentrations, therebyreducing the oxygen carrying capacity of red blood cells.44 One potential hazard for the patient is falsely elevated pulse oximeter readings. Pulse oximeter readings are compromised in the presence of dyshemoglobinemia. Carboxyhemoglobin and methemoglobin are dyshemoglobinemias, and give a falsely elevated oxygen reading which could result in unrecognized patient hypoxia.9

 

bronchitis 

 Light‐headedness Carcinoma 

Dermatitis 

Lacrimation ColicAnxietyAnemia

 

 Hepatitis 

As early as 1988, Baggish and colleagues conducted animal research establishing a link between inhaling unfiltered surgical smoke and pulmonary changes. Laboratory rats were exposed to unfiltered smoke and smoke filtered through a smoke evacuator. The rats that breathed the unfiltered smoke showed pathological pulmonary changes. Those that breathed smoke that was passed through an ultra-low penetration air filter (ULPA) showed no pathological changes.39 A study by Wenig and colleagues in 1993 supports Baggish’s work on animal pulmonary changes, such as alveolar congestion and emphysema.40

Concerns have been documented among practitioners about the possibility of contracting infections from inhaling the viral components of surgical smoke. A 44-year-old laser surgeon in Norway developed laryngeal papillomatosis. In situ DNA hybridization of his tumor biopsies revealed human papillomavirus DNA types consistent with the anogenital condylomas lased from his patients.41 Information about the potential risks is readily available. Still, we ask for more proof. Cunnington at the Leicester Royal Infirmary in the United Kingdom insightfully observes “Evidence may be a long time coming — as with smoking— [while] staff are literally absorbing the risk.”42

19

RISKS TO PATIENTSSurgical smoke can be a risk for patients during laparoscopic surgery. A study from University of Minnesota measured levels of carbon monoxide inside the peritoneal cavity during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. The study found that carbon monoxide was present in the abdomen five minutes after the use of electrosurgery at a median concentration of 345 parts per million (ppm). By the end of the procedure the median concentration had risen to 475 ppm. This was in excess of the 35 ppm upper limit for a one-hour exposure set by the Environmental Protection Agency.43

Danger of smoke inside the abdomen has also been documented at Mercer University School of Engineering. As smoke is produced inside the abdomen, it is absorbed through the peritoneal membrane. The subsequent result in the patient’s bloodstream is an increase in the methemoglobin and carboxyhemoglobin concentrations, thereby reducing the oxygen carrying capacity of red blood cells.44 One potential hazard for the patient is falsely elevated pulse oximeter readings. Pulse oximeter readings are compromised in the presence of dyshemoglobinemia. Carboxyhemoglobin and methemoglobin are dyshemoglobinemias, and give a falsely elevated oxygen reading which could result in unrecognized patient hypoxia.9

 

16  

papillomatosis. In situ DNA hybridization of his tumor biopsies revealed  human papillomavirus DNA types consistent with the anogenital condylomas lased from his patients.41  Information about the potential risks is readily available.  Still, we ask for more proof. Cunnington at the Leicester Royal Infirmary in the United Kingdom insightfully observes 

“Evidence may be a long time coming — as with smoking— [while] staff are literally absorbing the risk.”42 

RISKS TO PATIENTS 

Surgical smoke can be a risk for patients during  laparoscopic surgery. A study from University of Minnesota measured levels of carbon monoxide inside the peritoneal cavity during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. The study found that carbon monoxide was present in the abdomen  five minutes after the use of electrosurgery at a median concentration of 345 parts per million (ppm). By the end  of the procedure the median concentration had risen to 475 ppm. This was in excess of the 35 ppm upper limit for a one‐hour exposure set by the Environmental Protection Agency.43 

Danger of smoke inside the abdomen has also been documented at Mercer University School of Engineering. As smoke is produced inside the abdomen, it is absorbed  through the peritoneal membrane. The subsequent result in the patient’s bloodstream is an increase in the methemoglobin  and  carboxyhemoglobin  concentrations, thereby reducing the oxygen carrying capacity of red  blood cells.44 One potential hazard for the patient is falsely elevated pulse oximeter readings. Pulse oximeter readings  are compromised in the presence of dyshemoglobinemia. Carboxyhemoglobin  and methemoglobin  are dyshemoglobinemias, and give a falsely elevated oxygen  reading which could result in unrecognized patient hypoxia.9 

             

An additional risk to the patient from surgical smoke inside the abdomen is port‐site metastases. The theory has been that if malignant tissue is cauterized and aerosolized inside the abdomen, the cancerous cells could reimplant at another site. A study conducted by Fletcher and colleagues  in Canada concluded that when electrocautery is applied to melanoma cells they are released into the plume. The  researchers concluded that the cells were viable and could be grown in culture. This could explain port metastases at  sites that were not in direct contact with the tumor.45  

  

 

  

20

An additional risk to the patient from surgical smoke inside the abdomen is port-site metastases. The theory has been that if malignant tissue is cauterized and aerosolized inside the abdomen, the cancerous cells could reimplant at another site. A study conducted by Fletcher and colleagues in Canada concluded that when electrocautery is applied to melanoma cells they are released into the plume. The researchers concluded that the cells were viable and could be grown in culture. This could explain port metastases at sites that were not in direct contact with the tumor.45

ThE BEST DEFENSE AGAINST SMOKEWhat can you do to protect yourself from the potential dangers of inhaling surgical smoke? Former AORN Journal Editor Brenda Gregory Dawes stated in 2000 that a “stop smoke campaign begins with you.”46 Use available tools and knowledge to minimize exposure to surgical smoke. Until there are regulations that reduce the occupational hazard of surgical smoke, become an expert in what can be done.

GENERAL OPERATING ROOM VENTILATIONThe operating room air exchanges through the general air circulation should be maintained at a minimum of 15 exchanges per hour in U.S. hospitals. All rooms should be maintained at positive pressures.47 It is also important to ensure filters for the general ventilation system are maintained and changed as recommended by the manufacturer. Dirty air filters will impede room air exchanges.

SURGICAL MASKSThe original purpose of the surgical mask was to protect patients from infection from members of the surgical team. Now the need is to also protect health-care professionals from aerosols released into the atmosphere in surgical smoke. The filtration efficiency of masks varies.48 Surgical masks generally filter particles to about 5 microns (micrometers) in size. High-filtration masks, also referred to as “laser” masks, filter particles to about 0.1 microns in size. Approximately 77 percent of the particulate matter in smoke is 1.1 microns and smaller.49 Wearing the higher filtration masks does afford some respiratory protection. Viral particles however, can be much smaller than 0.1 microns.

There is the ongoing controversy about how masks are worn, and how long surgical masks should be worn. A mask worn loosely or worn too long is less effective.50 Masks should be worn snugly and changed often. Masks should not, however, be the only defense against surgical smoke. Additional means are necessary to protect surgical team members from inhaling surgical smoke.

WALL SUCTIONOperating room wall suction has been the most popular way to evacuate smoke. Wall suction usually pulls less than 5 cubic feet per meter (CFM), so this suction will only be effective in procedures that produce a small amount of smoke. If wall suction is used, an inline filter must also be used (Figure 6). If an inline filter is not used to filter the smoke, then a buildup of particles from the smoke can begin to occlude the suction line.

For wall suction to be effective, the suction lines must always be patent. Inline filters must

21

be used according to the manufacturer’s instructions and changed as recommended. An overused filter affords no protection. After use, disposal of inline filters should be in accordance with standard precautions.

Figure 6 – Wall/Canister Suction with Inline Filter

SMOKE EVACUATION SySTEM – PORTABLEPortable smoke evacuation systems are presently the most versatile choice for operating rooms (Figure 7). The most effective smoke evacuation system is the triple filter system equipped with an ultra-low penetration air (ULPA) filter. ULPA filters are made up of a depth media material capable of capturing 0.12 micron and larger particulate matter at an efficiency rate of 99.9999 percent. At that rate, only one in 1 million particles will escape capture.25 The system is made up of a prefilter that captures large particles. The ULPA filter is the second stage of the filter, and captures the smaller particles of smoke. The final filter is made up of a special charcoal that captures the toxic chemicals found in smoke (Figure 8). The triple filter systems normally have variable suction volume capacity to accommodate various levels of smoke production. An effective portable smoke evacuation system should be able to pull a minimum airflow of 35 CFM to be able to capture surgical smoke.51

Figure 7 – Portable Smoke Evacuation Systems Consist of a Capture Device, a Vacuum Source and Filtration Systems

22

Figure 8 – ULPA Four-Stage Filter System

 

 

  

 

 

 A variety of cathe electrosurgeneration (Fiproduction. Lacarriage devictaken to ensurcapture veloci

   

              Figure 

  

  

 

Figure 6 ‐  Wall/l

   apture devicesrgery pencil origure 9). The rearger size tubie. The larger ture the tubing iity from the ev

 

8 – ULPA Four S

l/Canister Suction

  can be used wr is within the decommendationg can also beubing can be us close enoughacuator, there

                

Stage Filter Syste

 

 

 

absorbs toxic

Final/post  filt

n with Inline 

 with the smokedesign of the eon is  that the ce used with smused  farther awh to capture sfore, the  smok

em                        

 

 c gases and odors

er 

18 

 

 e  evacuation selectrosurgerycapture devicemoke evacuatoway from the emoke effectiveke evacuator s   p

 

amdumdifoshcoha

                            

 

systems. A smay pencil allowse be within 2 crs when it is nelectrosurgeryely. The larger tsetting will neeerioperative tmount of smokuring the proc

most appropriaisposing of useollowing a prochould be used.ontaminated fazard to healt

                            Figure 9

Figure 7 – PortCapture Devic

all carriage un for smoke capcm from the poot feasible to y pencil site, butubing also reqed to be increateam should ake  that will becedure and choate for the proced smoke evaccedure, standa. Gloves shoulfilter presents hcare professi

                     9 – Smoke Pencil C

table Smoke Evacce, a Vacuum Sour

it that attachepture at the sitoint of smoke use the pencilut care  shouldquires  greaterased. Thenticipate the e produced  oose the systecedure. Whencuation disposard precautionld be worn as aan occupationionals. 

Capture Devices

cuation Systems Crce and Filtration 

es  to te of its 

l d be r 

m  

sables ns a nal 

Consist of a Systems 

A variety of capture devices can be used with the smoke evacuation systems. A small carriage unit that attaches to the electrosurgery pencil or is within the design of the electrosurgery pencil allows for smoke capture at the site of its generation (Figure 9). The recommendation is that the capture device be within 2 cm from the point of smoke production. Larger size tubing can also be used with smoke evacuators when it is not feasible to use the pencil carriage device. The larger tubing can be used farther away from the electrosurgery pencil site, but care should be taken to ensure the tubing is close enough to capture smoke effectively. The larger tubing also requires greater capture velocity from the evacuator, therefore, the smoke evacuator setting will need to be increased. The perioperative team should anticipate the amount of smoke that will be produced during the procedure and choose the system most appropriate for the procedure.

Figure 9 – Smoke Pencil Capture Devices

When disposing of used smoke evacuation disposables following a procedure, standard precautions should be used. Gloves should be worn as a contaminated filter presents an

23

occupational hazard to healthcare professionals.

CENTRAL SMOKE EVACUATION SySTEMSNewly constructed operating rooms have the option of installing a central smoke evacuation system. These evacuation systems are located outside the operating room, and are therefore quieter than portable systems.

LAPAROSCOPIC SMOKE EVACUATIONSurgical smoke should be evacuated and filtered during laparoscopic procedures. The creation of smoke during minimally invasive procedures can hinder the surgeon’s view. Using devices that produce less smoke, such as bipolar electrosurgery units or tissue fusion systems, can help reduce the production of smoke.52 Laparoscopic smoke can be evacuated and filtered through special laparoscopic smoke evacuation devices. In addition to allowing better visibility during surgery, evacuating smoke will reduce the amount of methemoglobin and carboxyhemoglobin in the patient’s bloodstream postoperatively. When the pnuemoperitoneum is released at the end of the procedure, the insufflation gases and contaminants should also be evacuated and filtered through a smoke evacuation system to prevent spewing these inhalation hazards into the faces of surgical team members.

RECOMMENDED PRACTICES, GUIDELINES, STANDARDS, AND REGULATIONSEvacuation of surgical smoke is not mandated by an organization that has the force of law behind it. There are, however, many organizations that have voluntary guidelines and professional standards to protect healthcare professionals from surgical smoke. A review of current recommendations can assist perioperative practitioners in developing policies and procedures in individual institutions.

AMERICAN CONFERENCE OF GOVERNMENTAL INDUSTRIAL hyGIENISTS (ACGIh)ACGIH is a voluntary organization concerned with issues of air quality and exposure to potentially harmful contaminants. They have set threshold limit values (TLVs) for exposure to some known carcinogens and other potentially harmful compounds (Table 4). While the threshold limit values are not binding requirements by any organization, they are recognized as a resource for concerns related to environmental air quality.53

AMERICAN NURSES ASSOCIATION (ANA)ANA has been a partner with AORN on surgical smoke since AORN’s major initiatives began in 1996. ANA has urged nurses to be proactive in working with government officials to develop specific smoke guidelines, and has contacted government officials, including those at OSHA to push for stronger controls.54

ASSOCIATION OF PERIOPERATIVE REGISTERED NURSES (AORN)AORN, the professional organization for perioperative registered nurses, has been a strong proponent for protection from surgical smoke. Since 1994, AORN Guidelines for

24

Perioperative Practice, formerly known as the Standards and Recommended Practices, have called for evacuating and filtering surgical smoke. The AORN Guidelines are used in operating rooms around the world to set standards for the perioperative environment. AORN held national conferences on surgical smoke in 1996 and 1997 to raise awareness about the issues of surgical smoke, and to facilitate adoptions of standards and guidelines from partner organizations. Today, the Guidelines for Perioperative Practice address the need to evacuate surgical smoke in the following guidelines: Laser, Electrosurgery, and Minimally Invasive Surgery.47

In December 2006, AORN formed an alliance with OSHA to collaborate on workplace safety — another avenue AORN is pursuing to make the operating room safer for workers and patients.55 AORN partners with many other organizations to work for the safety of not just its 40,000 members, but for anyone who provides care during operative and invasive procedures. In April 2008 at AORN Congress an official Position Statement was adopted on surgical smoke. The statement on Surgical Smoke and Bio-Aerosols is the strongest practice recommendation from AORN to date. In the statement, AORN recognizes that surgical smoke is a hazard to perioperative personnel and urges the use of personal protective equipment and evacuation and filtration of smoke through an appropriate system. The statement further says that perioperative personnel should be educated about the dangers of surgical smoke to increase awareness of the need to evacuate and filter smoke.8

At the 2009 annual AORN Congress, the AORN Surgical Smoke Evacuation Tool Kit was introduced.56 This tool kit contains a sample smoke evacuation policy, a sample competency for smoke evacuation practices, creative smoke evacuation signs that can be copied and posted as reminders for smoke evacuation, a bibliography of surgical smoke research and information, and linkages to vendors who sell smoke evacuation devices and equipment. This tool kit continues to get updated to reflect the most current information and practices in surgical smoke hazards and evacuation.

In 2016, AORN partnered with Medtronic to launch a comprehensive initiative to promote a smoke-free environment to protect worker and patient safety in all locations where surgical smoke may be generated. The Go Clear Award recognizes facilities committed to ensuring a smoke-free environment to protect both patients and perioperative staff. Components of this three-year program to assist perioperative staff and hospital administrators to eliminate surgical smoke in health care facilities include: pre-testing, gap analysis, interprofessional education, compliance auditing, and post-testing. Levels of award recognition for facilities are gold, silver, and bronze.57

AMERICAN NATIONAL STANDARDS INSTITUTE (ANSI)ANSI is a multidisciplinary group that has identified a set of voluntary standards developed by members from professional societies, trade associations and other organizations. They have standards related to the safe use of lasers, and have supported the use of smoke evacuation technology. ANSI Z136.3 standard is recognized as the definitive document on health care laser safety and provides guidance for the safe use of lasers for medicine, diagnostic, cosmetic, preventative and therapeutic applications.58

25

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF OCCUPATIONAL SAFETy AND hEALTh (NIOSh)NIOSH is under the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) within the US Department of Health and Human Services. It investigates potential occupational health risks and makes recommendations to OSHA. NIOSH has no regulatory or enforcement authority, but conducts health hazard evaluations and issues health hazard alerts. NIOSH recommendations are referenced on the OSHA Website on smoke evacuation. Following AORN’s 1996 smoke conference at which NIOSH was represented, the strongest recommendation to date was issued. The NIOSH Hazard Control Alert on the Control of Smoke from Laser/Electric Surgical Procedures is one of the most important documents available to health-care professionals. It recommends evacuation and filtration of surgical smoke. The Hazard Control has remained on the NIOSH Web site since its development in 1996 (Figure 1).4

ECRIECRI, formerly the Emergency Care Research Institute, is a nonprofit agency in Plymouth Meeting, Pennsylvania. ECRI evaluates products used in the health-care arena, and makes recommendations about the safe use of those products. ECRI provides consultation and evaluation services to patient-care organizations, and provides education. ECRI has consistently recommended the use of smoke evacuation and filtration, while acknowledging the lack of national regulation. ECRI’s position is that it is prudent for facilities to minimize staff exposure to surgical smoke.51

ThE JOINT COMMISSIONFounded in 1951, The Joint Commission (formerly known as the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations – JCAHO) evaluates health-care organizations and programs, and provides accreditation to facilities that meet their requirements. Hospitals voluntarily seek Joint Commission (TJC) accreditation since it essentially alerts the public that the hospital complies with safe standards in delivering patient care.

In 2004, TJC entered into an alliance with OSHA to address safety and health issues in health-care facilities. The agreement between OSHA and TJC focused on reducing exposure to biological and airborne hazards in health care.59 Although TJC standards were updated in 2009 to specifically mention surgical smoke, TJC representatives have spoken out to say that they have always interpreted the smoke generated in the OR as hazardous.

OCCUPATIONAL SAFETy AND hEALTh ADMINISTRATION (OShA)OSHA is the federal agency that enforces laws and regulations ensuring U.S. employees work in a safe, healthy environment.60 While OSHA does not have specific regulations related to the evacuation of surgical smoke, OSHA officials have consistently stated that regulations are already on the books to protect workers from surgical smoke. OSHA’s General Duty Clause, the standards for respiratory protection and bloodborne pathogens are routinely cited as those that should be used to enforce safe workplace standards, including smoke evacuation.

In 1998 when OSHA wrote a guideline on surgical smoke, Laser/Electrosurgery Plume

26

safety was added to the osha.gov Web site.6 The OSHA guideline was never released, but the protection recommendations mirrored those of the CDC/NIOSH Hazard Alert (Figure 1). OSHA has added a Hospital e-Tools section to its Web site, a portion of which addresses perioperative workplace safety and the hazards of smoke plume.61

Using the combined resources available from the agencies and organizations listed above can be a strong resource for perioperative practitioners.

INTERNATIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS/GUIDELINES ON SURGICAL SMOKEPerioperative nurses throughout the world have noted that inhalation of surgical smoke is a definite workplace hazard. The need to evacuate and appropriately filter surgical smoke is being recognized around the world as countries move to provide a safer environment for perioperative personnel and patients. Here are some accounts of what is happening around the world.

NORDIC COUNTRIESThe guidelines in the Nordic countries are currently some the most prescriptive on surgical smoke. Translated, the document states:

“Comparisons between laser smoke and diathermy smoke (electrocoagulation) show that even diathermy smoke can contain insanitary substances, and measures should be taken to eliminate such smoke.”62

UNITED KINGDOMThe British Occupational Hygiene Society (BOHS) has developed a guidance document on surgical smoke to be used by managers in the National Health Service.63 The document acknowledges the harmful effects of the contents of surgical smoke and recommends that local exhaust ventilation (LEV) be used to evacuate and filter the smoke:

“Theatres usually have high rates of general ventilation. This does not, however, prevent the emission of smoke into the room or the exposure of staff. Local exhaust ventilation (LEV) is required to achieve this. The known irritancy, the other hazardous properties of the component contaminants, and the persistent concerns of chronic effects combine to lead to the conclusion that effective LEV should be considered a required control measure.”63,p. 1

The document goes on to say that the smoke evacuator should pull smoke at a minimum of 22 liters/minute to effectively capture the smoke. It further states that anyone experiencing respiratory symptoms be referred to the occupational health service.63

CANADAThe Canadian Standards Association (CSA) has developed a standard for smoke evacuation in Canada.

27

The document, Z305.13-13 Plume Scavenging in Surgical, Diagnostic, Therapeutic, and Aesthetic Settings, identifies the dangers of surgical smoke and goes into significant detail about the importance of evacuating and filtering smoke/plume wherever it is produced. The Canadian document was revised in 2013 and outlines information from ensuring appropriate measures are incorporated into existing health and safety management systems to specific requirements for plume scavenging systems (PSSs).64

NURSING ORGANIZATIONS AROUND ThE WORLDIn addition to AORN, nursing organizations around the world have taken the step of developing recommended practices on surgical smoke. All are similar in scope in documenting the hazards of surgical smoke and recommending that healthcare workers be protected by evacuating and filtering surgical smoke.

ThE INTERNATIONAL FEDERATION OF PERIOPERATIVE NURSES (IFPN)IFPN is a worldwide organization whose members are 13 perioperative organizations in countries around the world. The IFPN represents approximately 80,000 perioperative nurses globally and is the only perioperative association to be an affiliate of the International Council of Nurses. In July, 2007 IFPN adopted a guideline aimed at protecting perioperative personnel for surgical smoke:

“It is important that Employers and Employees are aware of the problem of smoke… and ensure that there are policies in place to reduce the exposure to smoke … and that such policies also comply with workplace health and safety laws, or other legislative guidance, and with International Electro-technical Commission (IEC), standards pertinent to the particular health care setting.”65

ASSOCIATION FOR PERIOPERATIVE PRACTITIONERSThe Association for Perioperative Practitioners (AfPP) is an association in the United Kingdom dedicated to enhance the quality of care within the National Health Service. The AfPP document, “Surgical Smoke: What Do We Know” identifies the need to evacuate surgical smoke during procedure.62

AUSTRALIAN COLLEGE OF OPERATING ROOM NURSES (ACORN)ACORN represents professional nurses across Australia. Members practice across many perioperative environments that include operating theatres, day surgery units, anesthetics, post anesthetics, x-ray departments, the military, management, and educational settings. ACORN has a specific standard that addresses surgical plume (S20) and the evacuation of this inhalation hazard.66

OPERATING ROOM NURSES ASSOCIATION OF CANADA (ORNAC)ORNAC is the organization representing perioperative nurses throughout Canada. In addition to referencing standards from the Canadian Standards Association, ORNAC publishes recommended practices to assist perioperative nurses in Canada with smoke evacuation practices. ORNAC advocates smoke free theatres (ORs) which is reflected in the website they promote at www.becomenasti.com (with “nasti” standing for “nurses

28

advocating smoke-free theatres immediately”)67,68. Information about this website can be found at http://www.ornac.ca/en/education/nurse-safety.

IMPLEMENTING A SMOKE EVACUATION PROGRAMThe first step in developing a smoke evacuation program is for each facility to make a commitment that it is a priority to protect staff and patients from the potentially harmful effects of surgical smoke. The commitment should be made with representatives from each of the professional groups providing care in the operating room: surgeons, anesthesia providers, perioperative staff and administration. Consensus among the entire surgical team before the program begins is important and will help insure success. Once an agreement has been reached, a plan should be developed to introduce the program through education. Educating staff members about the hazards of surgical smoke is another key to success. Take advantage of all available resources to create an educational program that will increase awareness.

A smoke evacuation system must be selected. Again, a multidisciplinary group that investigates available technology will provide a comprehensive list of what is needed. Some points to consider in choosing among the available systems are:

• Portability• Effectiveness (filtering capability, suction power)• Noise production• Ease of use• Foot pedal activation versus automatic activation• Filter monitoring (indicator for filter changing)• Filter and canister design• Cost and operating expenses

Once a system is selected and the equipment and supplies are available, in-services on the equipment must be conducted. This is usually done by representatives from the manufacturer of the equipment, as they know the equipment best. Policies and procedures should be developed based on the type of equipment being used — not all systems are the same. Both inline suction filters and portable smoke evacuators will likely be necessary. The smoke evacuation policy should include a delineation of which smoke evacuation system (inline, or individual smoke evacuation system) is recommended for which surgical procedures. (Appendix B)

Policies should include competencies based on selecting and using accessories and smoke evacuation equipment. Some of the competency checklist activities can include:

• Ability to identify which smoke evacuation method is appropriate depending on the amount of plume generated.

• Sets up smoke evacuation supplies, devices, and/or equipment appropriately.• Changes and disposed of filter correctly and appropriately.• Uses smoke evacuation devices and equipment properly throughout

procedure.• Documents use of smoke evacuation devices/equipment.

29

As with any new practice, compliance must be monitored. Research demonstrates that smoke evacuation practices are very inconsistent. The most popular method of smoke evacuation is using a suction device for fluid evacuation without an inline filter.69, 70 Other research by Edwards & Reiman notes that smoke evacuation practices in 2010 as compared to those in 2007 continue to be inconsistent with no change for most procedures and a higher use of the wall suction for smoke evacuation for other procedures.71

When surveying AORN members about smoke evacuation practices, Ball’s research notes that the key indicators of compliance or reasons that surgical smoke recommendations are being followed include:69, 70

• Education (if the nurse has attended a lecture or read an article about surgical smoke hazards and smoke evacuation practices, then compliance is greater)

• Leadership (if there is strong departmental leadership in support of smoke evacuation, then compliance is greater)

• Easy to follow smoke evacuation policy (then compliance will be greater)• Greater internal collaboration (if the doctors and nurses have a good working

relationship, then there will be greater compliance)• Large facilities with multi-discipline services (are more apt to comply with smoke

evacuation recommendations)

The barriers to compliance with smoke evacuation recommendations include:69, 70

• Smoke evacuation devices and supplies aren’t readily available• Surgeons state that smoke evacuation is not necessary for their procedures• The smoke evacuation equipment is too noisy• The staff has a complacent attitude about the need to evacuate surgical smoke

(they don’t fully understand the negative consequences of inhaling surgical smoke)

When a smoke evacuation program for a facility is planned and implemented, the reasons that nurses comply with smoke evacuation practices must be reviewed and discussed. The barriers to compliance must also be identified so they can be minimized. Sometimes leadership has discovered that setting a date for full compliance gives a goal that everyone who is involved can anticipate. Before the predetermined smoke-free date is reached, a smoke evacuation policy must be created along with a competency checklist, smoke evacuation supplies and devices must be evaluated, ordered, and made readily available, physician procedure cards need updated, and (most importantly) education must be provided so that the entire staff fully understands the negative consequences of inhaling surgical smoke and how to use the smoke evacuation equipment and supplies. Champions who support smoke evacuation need to be identified so they can help encourage others to employ proper smoke evacuation practices.

Once a smoke evacuation program is implemented, monitoring is part of evaluation and needs assessment. If compliance with using smoke evacuation continues to be low, the need for additional education may be necessary. Teamwork and peer review are essential components of a successful and effective monitoring program.

30

Setting up a smoke evacuation program requires work and dedication but a successful outcome, however, is very beneficial to the health of the surgical team members. Hospitals that can advertise a smoke-free work environment in the operating room just might have an edge in recruiting and retaining top perioperative staff.

31

GLOSSARyActive Electrode An electrosurgical instrument or accessory that

concentrates the electric (therapeutic) current at the surgical site.

Aerosols Suspension of fine solid or liquid particles in air, as smoke, fog, or mist.

Alternating Current A flow of electrons that reverses direction at regular intervals.

Bipolar Electrosurgery Electrosurgery in which current flows between two bipolar electrodes that are positioned around tissue to create a surgical effect (usually desiccation). Current passes from one electrode through the desired tissue to another electrode, thus completing the circuit without entering any other part of the patient’s body.

Bloodborne Pathogens Pathogenic microorganisms that are present in human blood and can cause disease in humans. May include – but are not limited to, HIV, HPV, or hepatitis B.

Breathing Zone An imaginary globe of a two foot radius surrounding the head.

Cautery The use of heat or caustic substances to destroy tissue or coagulate blood.

Coagulation The clotting of blood or destruction of tissue with no cutting effect, electrosurgical fulguration and desiccation.

Current The number of electrons moving past a given point per second, measured in amperes.

Cut A low-voltage, continuous waveform optimized for electrosurgical cutting.

Cutting Use of the cut waveform to achieve an electrosurgical effect that results from high-current density in the tissue causing cellular fluid to burst into steam and disrupt the structure. Voltage is low and current flow is high.

32

Desiccation The electrosurgical effect of tissue dehydration and protein denaturation caused by direct contact between the electrosurgical electrode and tissue. Lower current density/concentration than cutting.

Diathermy The healing of body tissue generated by resistance to the flow of high-frequency electric current.

Direct Current A flow of electrons in only one direction.

Electrosurgery The passage of high-frequency electrical current through tissue to create a desired clinical effect.

ESU Electrosurgical Unit.

Exposure The fact or condition of being exposed.

Fulguration Using electrical arcs (sparks) to coagulate tissue. The sparks jump from the electrode across an air gap to the tissue.

Generator The machine that coverts low-frequency alternating current to high-frequency electrosurgical current.

hypoxia Subnormal levels of oxygen in the air, blood, or tissue.

Monopolar Electrosurgery A surgical procedure in which only the active electrode is in the surgical wound; electrosurgery that directs current through the patient’s body and requires the use of a patient return electrode.

Occupational Exposure Reasonably anticipated skin, eye, mucous membrane, or parenteral contact with blood or other potentially infectious materials that may occur as a result of the performance of an employee’s duties.

Pad A patient return electrode.

ADDITIONAL RESOURCESCanadian Standards Assocition.Plume scavenging in surgical, diagnostic, therapeutic,

and aesthetic settings. http://shop.csa.ca/en/canada/perioperativesafety/z3051313/invt/27029382013. Accessed August 2, 2016.

33

REFERENCES1. United States Department of Labor. Laser/Electrosurgery Plume. https://

www.osha.gov/SLTC/laserelectrosurgeryplume/. Accessed August 8, 2016.2. Ball K. Surgical modalities. In: Rothrock JC, (Ed). Alexander’s Care of

Patient in Surgery. 15th ed. St. Louis, MO: Elsevier Mosby; 2015:211-252.3. Giordano BP. Don’t be a victim of surgical smoke. AORN J. 1996;63(3):520,

2. Epub 1996/03/01. PubMed PMID: 8651664.4. Center for Disease Control and Prevention. CDC - NIOSH Publications and

Products - Control of Smoke From Laser/Electric Surgical Procedures (96-128) 1996. http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/hazardcontrol/hc11.html. Accessed August 8, 2016.

5. Romig CL, Smalley PJ. Regulation of surgical smoke plume. AORN J. 1997;65(4):824-8. PubMed PMID: 9148679.

6. Ulmer B. Health policy issues. Occupational Safety and Health Administration acts on guidelines for electrosurgical smoke. AORN J. 1998;67(6):1244-5. doi: 10.1016/S0001-2092(06)62612-4.

7. OSHA shelves plan to issue bulletin on surgical smoke. Hospital Employee Health. 2000;78-80.

8. Association of periOperative Registered Nurses. Surgical Smoke and Bio-Aerosols: Association of periOperative Registered Nurses; 2012.

9. Ott DE. Smoke and particulate hazards during laparoscopic procedures. Surgical Services Management. 1997;3(3):11-2.

10. Luciano AA, Soderstrom RM, Martin DC. Essential principles of electrosurgery in operative laparoscopy. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc. 1994;1(3):189-95. PubMed PMID: 9138867.

11. Massarweh NN, Cosgriff N, Slakey DP. Electrosurgery: History, principles, and current and future uses. Journal of the American College of Surgeons. 2006;202(3):520-30. doi: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2005.11.017. PubMed PMID: WOS:000236233800018.

12. Youker SR, Ammirati CT. Practical aspects of laser safety. Facial Plast Surg. 2001;17(3):155-63. doi: 10.1055/s- 2001-17972. PubMed PMID: 11673805.

13. Andersen K. Safe use of lasers in the operating room: what perioperative nurses should know. AORN J. 2004;79(1):171. doi:10.1016/S0001-2092(06)61151-4. PubMed PMID: 2004052820.

14. ECRI. ESU smoke - should it be evacuated? Health Devices. 1990;19(1):12.

34

15. Siperstein AE, Berber E, Morkoyun E. The use of the harmonic scalpel vs. conventional knot tying for vessel ligation in thyroid surgery. Arch Surg. 2002;137(2):137-42. doi: soa1129 [pii]. PubMed PMID: 11822946.

16. 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. Epub 2003/03/18. doi: 10.1007/ s00464-002-8584-5. PubMed PMID: 12640543.

17. Heinsohn P, Jewett DL. Exposure to blood-containing aerosols in the operating room: A preliminary study. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J. 1993;54(8):446-53. Epub 1993/08/01. doi: 10.1080/15298669391354946. PubMed PMID: 8213488.

18. Yeh HC, Muggenburg BA, Guilmette RA, Snipes MB, Turner RS, Jones RK, et al. Characterization of aerosols produced during total hip replacement surgery in dogs with 51Cr-labeled blood. Journal of Aerosol Science. 1995;26(3):511-8. doi: 10.1016/0021-8502(94)00119-J.

19. Andersen E. Surgical smoke: Is there a fire? AAOHN Journal. 2005;53(3):103-4. PubMed PMID: 2005091914.

20. González-Bayón L, González-Moreno S, Ortega-Pérez G. Safety considerations for operating room personnel during hyperthermic intraoperative intraperitoneal chemotherapy perfusion. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2006;32(6):619-24. doi: S0748-7983(06)00114-4 [pii] 10.1016/j.ejso.2006.03.019. PubMed PMID: 16672186.

21. Taravella MJ, Viega J, Luiszer F, Drexler J, Blackburn P, Hovland P, et al. Respirable particles in the excimer laser plume. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2001;27(4):604-7. doi: S0886-3350(00)00813-0 [pii]. PubMed PMID: 11311631.

22. Dikes CN. Is it safe to allow smoke in our operating room? Todays Surg Nurse. 1999;21(2):15-21; quiz 38-9. PubMed PMID:10232284.

23. DesCoteaux JG, Picard P, Poulin EC, Baril M. Preliminary study of electrocautery smoke particles produced in vitro and during laparoscopic procedures. Surg Endosc. 1996;10(2):152-8. PubMed PMID: 8932618.

24. Miller KA, Siscovick DS, Sheppard L, Shepherd K, Sullivan JH, Anderson GL, et al. Long-term exposure to air pollution and incidence of cardiovascular events in women. N Engl J Med. 2007;356(5):447-58. doi: 356/5/447 [pii] 10.1056/NEJMoa054409. PubMed PMID: 17267905.

25. Ulmer BC. The hazards of surgical smoke. AORN J. 2008;87(4):721-34; quiz 35-8. Epub 2008/05/09. PubMed PMID:18461735.

35

26. Hollmann R, Hort CE, Kammer E, Naegele M, Sigrist MW, Meuli-Simmen C. Smoke in the operating theater: an unregarded source of danger. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2004;114(2):458-63. PubMed PMID: 15277814.

27. Plappert UG, Stocker B, Helbig R, Fliedner TM, Seidel HJ. Laser pyrolysis products-genotoxic, clastogenic and mutagenic effects of the particulate aerosol fractions. Mutat Res. 1999;441(1):29-41. Epub 1999/05/04. PubMed PMID: 10224320.

28. Jewett DL, Heinsohn P, Bennett C, Rosen A, Neuilly C. Blood-containing aerosols generated by surgical techniques: a possible infectious hazard. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J. 1992;53(4):228-31. Epub 1992/04/01. doi: 10.1080/15298669291359564. PubMed PMID: 1529914.

29. Garden JM, O’Banion MK, Shelnitz LS, Pinski KS, Bakus AD, Reichmann ME, et al. Papillomavirus in the vapor of carbon dioxide laser-treated verrucae. JAMA. 1988;259(8):1199-202. PubMed PMID: 2828703.

30. Ferenczy A, Bergeron C, Richart RM. Human papillomavirus DNA in CO2 laser generated plume of smoke and its consequences to the surgeon. Obstet Gynecol. 1990;75(1): 114-118.

31. 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. Epub 1989/07/01. PubMed PMID:2545749.

32. 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. Epub 1991/01/01. PubMed PMID: 1907345.

33. Capizzi PJ, Clay RP, Battey MJ. Microbiologic activity in laser resurfacing plume and debris. Lasers Surg Med. 1998;23(3):172-4. PubMed PMID: 9779652.

34. Garden JM, O’Banion MK, Bakus AD, Olson C. Viral disease transmitted by laser-generated plume (aerosol). Arch Dermatol. 2002;138(10):1303-7. PubMed PMID: 12374535.

35. Brandon HJ, Young LV. Characterization and removal of electrosurgical smoke. Surgical Services Management. 1997;3(3):14-6. PubMed PMID: 1997022920.

36. Nicola JH, Nicola EM, Vieira R, Braile DM, Tanabe MM, Baldin DH. Speed of particles ejected from animal skin by CO2 laser pulses, measured by laser Doppler velocimetry. 2002;47(5):847-56. doi: 10.1088/0031-9155/47/5/311.

36

37. Tanpowpong K, Koytong W. Suspended particulate matter in an office and laser smoke particles in an operating room. J Med Assoc Thail. 2002;85(1):53-7. Epub 2002/06/22. PubMed PMID: 12075720.

38. Alp E, Bijl D, Bleichrodt RP, Hansson B, Voss A. Surgical smoke and infection control. J Hosp Infect. 2006;62:1-5.

39. Baggish MS, Baltoyannis P, Sze E. Protection of the rat lung from the harmful effects of laser smoke. Lasers Surg Med. 1988;8(3):248-53. Epub 1988/01/01. PubMed PMID: 3393053.

40. Wenig BL, Stenson KM, Wenig BM, Tracey D. Effects of plume produced by the Nd:YAG laser and electrocautery on the respiratory system. Lasers Surg Med. 1993;13(2):242-5. Epub 1993/01/01. PubMed PMID: 8464311.

41. Hallmo P, Naess O. Laryngeal papillomatosis with human papillomavirus DNA contracted by a laser surgeon. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 1991;248(7):425-7. Epub 1991/01/01. PubMed PMID: 1660719.

42. Cunnington J. Facilitating benefit, minimizing risk: Responsibilities of the surgical practitioner during electrosurgery. J Perioper Pract. 2006;16(4):195, 7-202. Epub 2006/05/04. PubMed PMID: 16669365.

43. 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. Epub 1993/08/01. PubMed PMID: 8346835.

44. Ott D. Smoke production and smoke reduction in endoscopic surgery: preliminary report. Endosc Surg Allied Technol. 1993;1(4):230-2. PubMed PMID: 8050026.

45. Fletcher JN, Mew D, DesCoteaux JG. Dissemination of melanoma cells within electrocautery plume. Am J Surg. 1999;178(1):57-9. PubMed PMID: 10456705.

46. Dawes BS. Stop smoke campaign begins with you. AORN J. 2000;72(5):768. PubMed PMID: 2000073971.

47. Association of periOperative Registered Nurses (AORN). Guideline for environment of care parts 1 & 2. In Guidelines for Perioperative Practice. Denver, CO: AORN; 2016:215-236.

48. Chen CC, Willeke K. Aerosol penetration through surgical masks. Am J Infect Control. 1992;20(4):177-84.

49. Kunachak S, Sobhon P. The potential alveolar hazard of carbon dioxide laser-induced smoke. J Med Assoc Thail. 1998;81(4):278-82.

37

50. Ball K. Update for nurse anesthetists. Part 1. The hazards of surgical smoke. AANA J. 2001;69(2):125-32, quiz 33-42. PubMed PMID: 11759146.

51. ECRI. Stationary surgical smoke evacuation systems. Health Devices. 2001;30(3):73-86.

52. Weld KJ, Dryer S, Ames CD, Cho K, Hogan C, Lee M, et al. Analysis of surgical smoke produced by various energy-based instruments and effect on laparoscopic visibility. J. 2007;21(3):347-51. Epub 2007/04/21. doi: 10.1089/end.2006.9994. PubMed PMID: 17444785.

53. American Conference of Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH). Documentation of the threshold limit values and biological exposure indices. 7 ed. Cincinnati: OH: ACGIH; 2016.

54. Wilburn S. Is the air in your hospital making you sick? Amer J Nurs. 1999;99(71).

55. Association of periOperative Registered Nurses. OSHA collaborate on workplace safety issues. AORN Connections. 2007;5(1):5.

56. AORN. Management of surgical smoke tool kit. 2016. AORN Web site. http://www.aorn.org/guidelines/clinical-resources/tool-kits/management-of-surgical-smoke-tool-kit. Accessed August 8, 2016.

57. AORN. AORN go clear award. AORN Web site. http://www.aorn.org/aorn-org/education/facility-solutions/aorn-awards/aorn-go-clear-award. Accessed on August 8, 2016.

58. American National Standards Institute (ANSI). Z136.3-2011: Safe use of lasers in healthcare. Washington DC: ANSI. 2011.

59. United States Department of Labor. Occupational Safety & Health Administration. The Joint Commission and Joint Commission Resources (JCR). http://www.osha.gov/dcsp/alliances/jcaho/jcaho.html. Accessed August 8, 2016.

60. United States Department of Labor. Occupational Safety & Health. https://www.https://www.osha.gov/. Accessed August 8, 2016.

61. Stanton C. OSHA alliance provides new resources for perioperative workplace safety issues. AORN Connections. 2007;5(7):8-9.

62. The Association for Perioperative Practice (AfPP). Surgical smoke what do we know? 2009;1-2.

63. British Occupational Hygiene Society (BOHS). COSHH guidance surgical smoke Derby, UK: British Occupational Hygiene Society; 2006.

38

64. Canadian Standards Association. Z305.13-13: Plume scavenging in surgical, diagnostic, therapeutic, and aesthetic settings. Toronto, ON: CSA Group; 2013.

65. International Federation of Perioperative Nurses (IFPN). IFPN guideline on smoke plume 2007. http://www.afpp.org.uk/filegrab/1smokeplume-Final1.pdf?ref=1112. Accessed August 8, 2016.

66. Australian College of Operating Room Nurses. Standards surgical plume: Australian College of Operating Room Nurses; 2010.

67. Nurses Advocating for Smoke-Free Theatres Immediately (NASTI). Welcome to becomenasti.com. http://www.becomenasti.com/. Accessed August 8, 2016.

68. Operating Room Nurses Association of Canada (ORNAC). Nurse safety. http://www.ornac.ca/en/education/nurse-safety. Accessed August 8, 2016.

69. Ball, K. Surgical smoke evacuation guidelines: Compliance among perioperative nurses. AORN J. 2010;92:e1-e23.

70. Ball, K. Compliance with surgical smoke evacuation guidelines: Implications for practice. AORN J. 2010:92:142-49.

71. Edwards BE, Reiman RE. Comparison of current and past surgical smoke control practices. AORN J. 2012; 95(3):337-50.

39

Please click here for thePost-Test and Evaluation