Intraoperative surgical smoke: occupational safety measures proposed by specialist nurses
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5327/Z1414-4425202100040005Keywords:
Smoke, Electrocoagulation, Occupational health, Biomedical technology, Intraoperative periodAbstract
Objective: To describe measures proposed by nurses specialized in surgical center (SC) to reduce inhalation of electrocoagulation smoke in
the intraoperative period and improve occupational safety. Method: This is a qualitative study based on data from a scientific meeting of SC specialists
about the inhalation of electrocoagulation smoke. The meeting was held in São Paulo in 2019, lasted one hour, and was audio-recorded. The SC-specialist
nurses who participated were randomly divided into four groups. The unavailability to participate in the entire meeting was considered an exclusion criterion. The data corpus consisted of: recording of the meeting and reports of the groups, followed by thematic analysis. Results: Twenty-one nurses,
most of them women, from seven Brazilian states participated in the meeting. They suggested the following measures to decrease smoke inhalation and
improve occupational safety: technology to reduce and/or suction smoke; surgical or N95 mask; room exhaust system; establishment of regulations;
continuing education. Conclusions: Measures to reduce smoke inhalation and increase team safety in the intraoperative period include technologies to
reduce smoke, use of personal protective equipment, establishment of regulations, and continuing education.
Keywords: Smoke. Electrocoagulation. Occupational health. Biomedical technology. Intraoperative period.
References
Liu Y, Song Y, Hu X, Yan L, Zhu X. Awareness of surgical smoke hazards and enhancement of surgical smoke prevention among the gynecologists. J Cancer. 2019;10(12):2788-99. DOI: 10.7150/jca.31464
Tan E, Russell K. Surgical plume and its implications: A review of the risk and barriers to a safe work place. J Perioper Nurs. 2017;30(4):33-9. DOI: 10.26550/2209-1092.1019
Liu Y, Zhao M, Shao Y, Yan L, Zhu X. Chemical composition of surgical smoke produced during Loop electrosurgical excision procedure treating cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. 2021;1-19. DOI: 10.21203/rs.2.20593/v1
Okubo CVC, Ribeiro RP, Martins JT, Marziale MHP. Hidrocarbonetos policíclicos aromáticos: correlação entre tempo de uso do eletrocautério e tempo cirúrgico. Cogitare Enferm. 2017;22(3). DOI: 10.5380/ce.v22i3.50115
Andréasson SN, Mahteme H, Sahlberg B, Anundi H. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in electrocautery smoke during peritonectomy procedures. J Environ Public Health. 2012;2012. DOI: 10.1155/2012/929053
Petrus M, Bratu AM, Patachia M, Dumitras DC. Spectroscopic analysis of surgical smoke produced in vitro by laser vaporization of animal tissues in a closed gaseous environment. Rom Reports Phys. 2015;67(3):954-65. [cited 25 mar 2021]. Available from: http://www.rrp.infim.ro/2015_67_3/A17.pdf
Mowbray N, Ansell J, Warren N, Wall P, Torkington J. Is surgical smoke harmful to theater staff? A systematic review. Surg Endosc. 2013;27(9):3100-7. DOI: 10.1007/s00464-013-2940-5
Casey VJ, Martin C, Curtin P, Buckley K, McNamara LM. Comparison of surgical smoke generated during electrosurgery with aerosolized particulates from ultrasonic and high-speed cutting. Ann Biomed Eng. 2021;49(2):560-72. DOI: 10.1007/s10439-020-w
Lewin JM, Brauer JA, Ostad A. Surgical smoke and the dermatologist. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2011;65(3):636-41. DOI: 10.1016/j.jaad.2010.11.017
McQuail PM, McCartney BS, Baker JF, Kenny P. Diathermy awareness among surgeons – an analysis in Ireland. Ann Med Surg. 2016;12:54-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.amsu.2016.10.006
Gao S, Koehler RH, Yermakov M, Grinshpun SA. Performance of facepiece respirators and surgical masks against surgical smoke: Simulated workplace protection factor study. Ann Occup Hyg. 2016;60(5):608-18. DOI: 10.1093/annhyg/mew006
Ilce A, Yuzden GE, Giersbergen MY. The examination of problems experienced by nurses and doctors associated with exposure to surgical smoke and the necessary precautions. J Clin Nurs. 2017;26(11–12):1555-61. DOI: 10.1111/jocn.13455
Stanganelli NC, Bieniek AA, Margatho AS, Galdino MJQ, Barbosa KH, Ribeiro RP. Inalação da fumaça cirúrgica: coorte de sinais e sintomas em residentes. Acta Paul Enferm. 2019;32(4):382-9. DOI: 10.1590/1982-0194201900053
Mendes KDS, Silveira RCCP, Galvão CM. Revisão integrativa: método de pesquisa para a incorporação de evidências na saúde e na enfermagem. Texto & Contexto Enferm. 2008;17(4):758-64. DOI: 10.1590/S0104-07072008000400018
Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, O’Brien KK, Colquhoun H, Levac D, et al. PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018;2(7):467-473. DOI: 10.7326/M18-0850
Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine. Levels of Evidence Working Group [Internet]. Oxford: CEBM; 2011. [cited 20 mar 2021]. Available from: https://www.cebm.ox.ac.uk/resources/levels-of-evidence/ocebm-levels-of-evidence
Claudio CV, Ribeiro RP, Martins JT, Marziale MHP, Solci MC, Dalmas JC. Hidrocarbonetos policíclicos aromáticos produzidos pela fumaça do eletrocautério e uso de equipamentos de proteção individual. Rev Lat Am Enfermagem. 2017;25. DOI: 10.1590/1518-8345.1561.2853
Hu X, Zhou Q, Yu J, Wang J, Tu Q, Zhu X. Prevalence of HPV infections in surgical smoke exposed gynecologists. Int Arch Occup Environ Health. 2020;94(1):107-15. [cited 21 mar 2021]. Available from: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00420-020-01568-9
Michaelis M, Hofmann FM, Nienhaus A, Eickmann U. Surgical smoke—hazard perceptions and protective measures in german operating rooms. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(2). DOI: 10.3390/ijerph17020515
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 Endourol. 2007;21(3):347-51. DOI: 10.1089/end.2006.9994
Sociedade Brasileira de Enfermeiros de Centro Cirúrgico, Recuperação Anestésica e Centro de Material e Esterilização (SOBECC). Diretrizes de práticas em enfermagem cirúrgica e processamento de produtos para a saúde - SOBECC. 7. ed. Rev. e atual. São Paulo (SP): Manole; 2017.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2022 Patrícia Treviso, Brenda Carvalho Peradotto, Juliana Vargas Campiol, Neide da Silva Knihs, Marcia Cristina de Oliveira Pereira, Giovana Abrahão de Araújo Moriya
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
By publishing in Revista SOBECC, authors retain the copyright of their article and agree to license their work using a Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) International Public License, thus accepting the terms of this license. The CC BY 4.0 license allows others to distribute, remix, adapt, and create from the published article, even for commercial purposes, provided they give due credit to the creators of the work (authors of the article).
The authors grant to Revista SOBECC the right of first publication, to identify itself as the original publisher, and grant to the journal a non-exclusive license to use the work in the following ways: (1) to sell and/or distribute the article in hard copies and/or in electronic format; (2) to distribute parts and/or the entire article in order to promote the journal through the internet and other digital and printed media; (3) to record and reproduce the article in any format, including digital media.
With this license, authors can enter into separate contracts for non-exclusive distribution of the article (e.g., publishing in an institutional repository or as a book chapter), with acknowledgement of authorship and initial publication in Revista SOBECC. Authors are encouraged to publish and distribute their work online after publication in the Revista SOBECC, as this can increase the article's visibility and impact.
In line with the journal's policies, each published article will be assigned a CC BY 4.0 license, which will be visible on the abstract page and in the PDF of each article with the respective link to the license terms.
