Does a mobile laminar airflow screen reduce bacterial contamination in the operating room? A numerical study using computational fluid dynamics technique

BackgroundAir-borne bacteria in the operating room (OR) may contaminate the surgical wound, either by direct sedimentation from the air or indirectly, by contaminated sterile instruments. Reduced air contamination can be achieved with an efficient ventilation system. The current study assesses the additive effect of a mobile laminar airflow (MLAF) unit on the microbiological air quality in an OR supplied with turbulent-mixing air ventilation.MethodsA recently designed OR in NKS (Nya Karolinska Sjukhuset, Stockholm, Sweden) was the physical model for this study. Simulation was made with MLAF units adjacent to the operating table and the instrument tables, in addition to conventional turbulent-mixing ventilation. The evaluation used numerical calculation by computational fluid dynamics (CFD). Sedimentation rates (CFU/m2/h) were calculated above the operating table and two instrument tables, and in the periphery of the OR. Bacterial air contamination (CFU/m3) was simulated above the surgical and instrument tables with and without the MLAF unit.ResultsThe counts of airborne and sedimenting, bacteria-carrying particles downstream of the surgical team were reduced to an acceptable level for orthopedic/implant surgery when the MLAF units were added to conventional OR ventilation. No significant differences in mean sedimentation rates were found in the periphery of the OR.ConclusionsThe MLAF screen unit can be a suitable option when the main OR ventilation system is unable to reduce the level of microbial contamination to an acceptable level for orthopedic implant surgery. However, MLAF effect is limited to an area within 1 m from the screen. Increasing air velocity from the MLAF above 0.4 m/s does not increase the impact area.

[1]  D. Vesley,et al.  Bacterial dispersion in relation to operating room clothing , 1976, Journal of Hygiene.

[2]  Sture Holmberg,et al.  Effect of a portable ultra-clean exponential airflow unit on the particle distribution in an operating room , 2015 .

[3]  Farhad Memarzadeh,et al.  Comparison of Operating Room Ventilation Systems in the Protection of the Surgical Site , 2002 .

[4]  C Pasquarella,et al.  A mobile laminar airflow unit to reduce air bacterial contamination at surgical area in a conventionally ventilated operating theatre. , 2007, The Journal of hospital infection.

[5]  A Tammelin,et al.  Single-use surgical clothing system for reduction of airborne bacteria in the operating room. , 2013, The Journal of hospital infection.

[6]  B Friberg,et al.  Mobile zoned/exponential LAF screen: a new concept in ultra-clean air technology for additional operating room ventilation. , 2002, The Journal of hospital infection.

[7]  W C Noble,et al.  Dispersal of skin microorganisms * , 1975, The British journal of dermatology.

[8]  R. P. Evans Current Concepts for Clean Air and Total Joint Arthroplasty: Laminar Airflow and Ultraviolet Radiation: A Systematic Review , 2011, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[9]  S. Friberga,et al.  The addition of a mobile ultra-clean exponential laminar airflow screen to conventional operating room ventilation reduces bacterial contamination to operating box levels , 2003 .

[10]  P. Jenks,et al.  Clinical and economic burden of surgical site infection (SSI) and predicted financial consequences of elimination of SSI from an English hospital. , 2014, The Journal of hospital infection.

[11]  T. Chow,et al.  Ventilation performance in the operating theatre against airborne infection: numerical study on an ultra-clean system. , 2005, The Journal of hospital infection.

[12]  Zhang Lin,et al.  The Integrated Effect of Medical Lamp Position and Diffuser Discharge Velocity on Ultra-clean Ventilation Performance in an Operating Theatre , 2006 .

[13]  A. Hambraeus,et al.  Aerobiology in the operating room--a review. , 1988, The Journal of hospital infection.

[14]  Tin-Tai Chow,et al.  Performance of ventilation system in a non-standard operating room , 2003 .

[15]  Sture Holmberg,et al.  Influence of staff number and internal constellation on surgical site infection in an operating room , 2014 .

[16]  Darrell A. Campbell,et al.  Measurement of Foot Traffic in the Operating Room: Implications for Infection Control , 2009, American journal of medical quality : the official journal of the American College of Medical Quality.

[17]  R Lundholm,et al.  Assessment of horizontal laminar air flow instrument table for additional ultraclean space during surgery. , 2010, The Journal of hospital infection.

[18]  J. Tinkler,et al.  The importance of airborne bacterial contamination of wounds. , 1982, The Journal of hospital infection.

[19]  O M LIDWELL,et al.  The size distribution of airborne particles carrying micro-organisms , 1963, Epidemiology and Infection.

[20]  Lars Lidgren,et al.  Prevention of deep infection in joint replacement surgery , 2010, Acta orthopaedica.

[21]  L G Burman,et al.  Further bacteriological evaluation of the TOUL mobile system delivering ultra-clean air over surgical patients and instruments. , 2006, The Journal of hospital infection.

[22]  Bengt Ljungqvist,et al.  Comparison of three distinct surgical clothing systems for protection from air-borne bacteria: A prospective observational study , 2012, Patient Safety in Surgery.