Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Is surgical smoke harmful to theater staff? a systematic review

  • Review
  • Published:
Surgical Endoscopy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Smoke is generated by energy-based surgical instruments. The airborne byproducts may have potential health implications. This study aimed to evaluate the properties of surgical smoke and the evidence for the harmful effects to the theater staff.

Methods

Cochrane Database, MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase classic and Embase, and the metaRegister of Controlled Trials were searched for studies reporting the constituents found in the smoke plume created during surgical procedures, the methods used to analyze the smoke, the implications of exposure, and the type of surgical instrument that generated the smoke. Studies were excluded if they were animal based, preclinical experimental work, or opinion-based reports. The common end points were particle size and characteristics, infection risk, malignant spread, and mutagenesis.

Results

The inclusion criteria were fulfilled by 20 studies. In terms of particle size, 5 (25 %) of the 20 studies showed that diathermy and laser can produce ultrafine particles (UFP) that are respirable in size. With regard to particle characterization, 7 (35 %) of the 20 studies demonstrated that a variety of volatile hydrocarbons are present in diathermy-, ultrasonic-, and laser-derived surgical smoke. These are potentially carcinogenic, but no evidence exists to support a cause–effect relationship for those exposed. In terms of infection risk, 6 (30 %) of the 20 studies assessed surgical smoke for the presence of viruses, with only 1 study (5 %) positively identifying viral DNA in laser-derived smoke. One study (5 %) demonstrated bacterial cell culture (Staphylococcus aureus) from a laser plume after surgery. Regarding mutagenesis and malignant spread, one study (5 %) reported the mutagenic effect of smoke, and one study (5 %) showed the presence of malignant cells in the smoke of a patient undergoing procedures for carcinomatosis.

Conclusions

The potentially carcinogenic components of surgical smoke are sufficiently small to be respirable. Infective and malignant cells are found in the smoke plume, but the full risk of this to the theater staff is unproven. Future work could focus on the long-term consequences of smoke exposure.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Massarweh NN, Cosgriff N, Slakey P (2006) Electrosurgery: history, principles, and current and future uses. J Am Coll Surg 202:520–530

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Lawrentschuk N, Fleshner NE, Bolton DM (2010) Laparoscopic lens fogging: a review of etiology and methods to maintain a clear visual field. J Endourol 24:905–913

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Spruce L, Braswell ML (2012) Implementing AORN-recommended practises for electrosurgery. AORN J 96:373–388

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. British Occupational Hygiene Society (2006) COSHH guidance: surgical smoke. Retrieved 7 January 2013 at http://www.bohs.org/uploadedFiles/Groups/Pages/Surgical_smoke.pdf

  5. The National Institute for Occupation Safety and Health (1996) Control of smoke from laser/electric surgical procedures. Retrieved 7 January 2013 at http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/hazardcontrol/pdfs/hc11.pdf

  6. CSA Group (2009) Surgical, diagnostic, therapeutic, aesthetic plume scavenging. Retrieved 7 January 2013 at http://www.csa.ca/cm/ca/en/home

  7. Edwards BE, Reiman RE (2008) Results of a survey on current surgical smoke control practices. AORN J 87:739–749

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Edwards BE, Reiman RE (2012) Comparison of current and past surgical smoke control practices. AORN J 95:337–350

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Barrett WL, Garber SM (2003) Surgical smoke: a review of the literature. Surg Endosc 17:979–987

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. PRISMA (2012) PRISMA transparent reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Retrieved 19 December 2012 at http://www.prisma-statement.org/statement.htm

  11. Centre for EBM Levels of Evidence (2012) Oxford centre for evidence-based medicine: levels of evidence. Retrieved 19 December 2012 at http://www.cebm.net/index.aspx?o=1025

  12. Andreasson SN, Anundi H, Sahlberg B, Ericsson CG, Walinder R, Enlund G, Pahlman L, Mahteme H (2009) Peritonectomy with high-voltage electrocautery generates higher levels of ultrafine smoke particles. Eur J Surg Oncol 35:780–784

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Bruske-Hohfeld I, Preissier G, Jauch KW, Pitz M, Nowak D, Peters A, Wichmann HE (2008) Surgical smoke and ultrafine particles. J Occup Med Toxicol 3:31

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. DesCoteaux JG, Picard P, Poulin E, Baril M (1996) Study of electrocautery smoke particles produced in vitro and during laparoscopic procedures. Surg Endosc 10:152–158

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Nezhat C, Winer WK, Nezhat F, Nezhat C, Forrest D, Reeves WG (1987) Smoke from laser surgery: is there a health hazard? Lasers Surg Med 7:376–382

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Smith J, Yeh HC, Muggenburg B, Guilmette R, Martin LS, Strine PW (1992) Study design for the characterization of aerosols during surgical procedures. J Scand J Work Environ Health 18(Suppl 2):106–109

    Google Scholar 

  17. Fitzgerald JE, Malik M, Ahmed I (2012) A single-blind controlled study of electrocautery and ultrasonic scalpel smoke plumes in laparoscopic surgery. Surg Endosc 26:337–342

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Hollmann R, Hort CE, Kammer E, Naegele M, Sigrist MW, Meuli-Simmen C (2004) Smoke in the operating theatre: an unregarded source of danger. Plast Reconstr Surg 114:458–463

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Lin YW, Fan SH, Chang KH, Huang CS, Tang CS (2010) A novel inspection protocol to detect volatile compounds in breast surgery electrocautery smoke. J Formos Med Assoc 109:511–516

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Moot AR, Ledingham KM, Wilson PF, Senthilmohan ST, Lewis DR, Roake J, Allardyce R (2007) Composition of volatile organic compounds in diathermy plume as detected by selected ion flow tube mass spectrometry. Anz J Surg 77:20–23

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Sagar PM, Meagher A, Sobczak S, Wolff BG (1996) Chemical composition and potential hazards of electrocautery smoke. Br J Surg 83:1792

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Weston R, Stephenson RN, Kutarski PW, Parr NJ (2009) Chemical composition of gases surgeons are exposed to during endoscopic urological resections. Urology 74:1152–1155

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Wu YC, Tang CS, Huang HY, Liu CH, Chen CH, Chen CR, Lin YW (2011) Chemical production in electrocautery smoke by a novel predictive model. Eur Surg Res 46:102–107

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Abramson AL, Dilorenzo TP, Steinberg BM (1990) Is papillomavirus detectable in the plume of laser-treated laryngeal papilloma? Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 116:604–607

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Capizzi PJ, Clay RP, Battey MJ (1998) Microbiologic activity in laser resurfacing plume debris. Lasers Surg Med 23:172–174

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Hughes PSH, Hughes AP (1998) Absence of human papillomavirus DNA in the plume of erbium: YAG laser-treated warts. J Am Acad Dermatol 38:426–428

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Kunachak S, Sithisarn P, Kulapaditharom (1996) Are laryngeal papillomavirus-infected cells viable in the plume derived from a continuous mode carbon dioxide laser, and are they infectious? a preliminary report on one laser mode. J Laryngol Otol 110:1031–1033

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Sawchuk WS, Weber PJ, Lowy DR, Dzubow LM (1989) Infectious papillomavirus in the vapor of warts treated with carbon dioxide laser or electrocoagulation: detection and protection. J Am Acad Dermatol 21:41–49

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Wisniewski PM, Warhol MJ, Rando RF, Sedlacek TV, Kemp JE, Fisher JC (1990) Studies on transmission of viral disease via the CO2 laser plume and ejecta. J Reprod Med 35:1117–1123

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Gatti JE, Bryant CJ, Noone RB, Murphy JB (1992) The mutagenicity of electrocautery smoke. Reconstr Surg 89:781–784

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Ikramuddin S, Lucas J, Ellison EC, Schirmer WJ, Melvin WS (1998) Detection of aerosolised cells during carbon dioxide laparoscopy. J Gastro Surg 2:580–583

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Ulmer BC (2008) The hazards of surgical smoke. AORN J 87:721–734

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Sanderson C (2012) Surgical smoke. J Perioper Pract 22:122–128

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Lewin JM, Brauer JA, Ostad A (2011) Surgical smoke and the dermatologist. J Am Acad Dermatol 65:636–641

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Donaldson K, Brown D, Clouter A, Duffin R, Macnee W, Renwick L, Tran L, Stone V (2002) The pulmonary toxicology of ultrafine particles. J Aerosol Med 15:213–220

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Gates MA, Feskanich D, Speizer FE, Hankinson SE (2007) Operating room nursing and lung cancer risk in a cohort of female registered nurses. Scand J Work Environ Health 33:140–147

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Medicines and Healthcare Product Regulatory Agency (2008) Guidance on the safe use of lasers, intense light source systems and LEDs in medical, surgical, dental, and aesthetic practices. Retrieved 4 December 2012 at http://www.mhra.gov.uk/home/groups/dtsiac/documents/publication/con014843.pdf

  38. American National Standard (2007) American National Standard for Safe Use of Lasers Institute. Retrieved 7 January 2013 at http://www.lia.org/PDF/Z136_1_s.pdf

Download references

Acknowledgments

James Ansell was sponsored by The Royal College of Surgeons of England Research Fellowship Grant.

Disclosures

Nicholas Mowbray, James Ansell, Neil Warren, Pete Wall, and Jared Torkington have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to James Ansell.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Mowbray, N., Ansell, J., Warren, N. et al. Is surgical smoke harmful to theater staff? a systematic review. Surg Endosc 27, 3100–3107 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-013-2940-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-013-2940-5

Keywords

Navigation