Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T19:23:58.622Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effect of type of ventilation used in the operating room and surgical site infection: A meta-analysis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 December 2020

Jian Bao  and
Jianhua Li Open the ORCID record for Jianhua Li [Opens in a new window]
Jian Bao
Affiliation:
Operating room, The Affiliated Lianyungang Hospital of Xuzhou Medical University, Lianyungang City, Jiangsu, 222000, China
Jianhua Li*
Affiliation:
Operating room, The Affiliated Lianyungang Hospital of Xuzhou Medical University, Lianyungang City, Jiangsu, 222000, China
*
Author for correspondence: Jianhua Li, E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstracts

Background:

The relation between type of ventilation used in the operating room and surgical site infection has drawn considerable attention with its conflicting results. A possible relationship between the type of ventilation used in the operating room and surgical site infection has been reported. This meta-analysis was performed to evaluate this relationship.

Methods:

A systematic literature search up to May 2020 identified 14 studies with 590,121 operations, 328,183 operations of which were performed under laminar airflow ventilation and 261,938 of which were performed operations under conventional ventilation. These articles reported relationships between type of operating-room ventilation with its different categories and surgical site infection: 10 studies were related to surgical site infection in the total hip replacement; 7 studies in total knee arthroplasties; and 3 studies in different abdominal and open vascular surgery. Odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated comparing surgical site infection prevalence and type of operating room ventilation using the dichotomous method with a random-effects or fixed-effects model.

Results:

No significant difference was found between operation performed under laminar airflow ventilation and conventional ventilation in total hip replacement (OR, 1.23; 95% CI, 0.97–1.56, P = .09), in total knee arthroplasties (OR, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.62–2.09; P = .67), and in different abdominal and open vascular surgery (OR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.43-1.33; P = .33). The impact of the type of operating room ventilation may have no influence on surgical site infection as a tool for decreasing its occurrence.

Conclusions:

Based on this meta-analysis, operating under laminar airflow or conventional ventilation may have no independent relationship with the risk of surgical site infection. This relationship forces us not to recommend the use of laminar airflow ventilation because it has a much higher cost compared to conventional ventilation.

Type
Original Article
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 42 , Issue 8 , August 2021 , pp. 931 - 936
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bischoff, P, Zeynep Kubilay, N, Allegranzi, B, Egger, M, Gastmeier, P. Effect of laminar airflow ventilation on surgical site infections: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Infect Dis 2017;17:553–561.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Allegranzi, B, Bagheri Nejad, S, Combescure, C, et al. Burden of endemic healthcare-associated infection in developing countries: systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet 2011;377:228–241.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Charnley, J. Operating-theatre ventilation. Lancet (London) 1970;1:1053.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Diab-Elschahawi, M, Berger, J, Blacky, A, et al. Impact of different-sized laminar air flow versus no laminar air flow on bacterial counts in the operating room during orthopedic surgery. Am J Infect Control 2011;39:e25–e29.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Birgand, G, Toupet, G, Rukly, S, et al. Air contamination for predicting wound contamination in clean surgery: a large multicenter study. Am J Infect Control 2015;43:516–521.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marotte, JH, Lord, GA, Blanchard, JP, et al. Infection rate in total hip arthroplasty as a function of air cleanliness and antibiotic prophylaxis: 10-year experience with 2,384 cementless Lord madreporic prostheses. J Arthroplast 1987;2:77–82.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lidwell, O, Lowbury, EJ, Whyte, W, Blowers, R, Stanley, SJ, Lowe, D. Effect of ultraclean air in operating rooms on deep sepsis in the joint after total hip or knee replacement: a randomised study. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed) 1982;285:10–14.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fitzgerald, R. Jr Total hip arthroplasty sepsis. Prevention and diagnosis. Orthoped Clin N Am 1992;23:259–264.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gastmeier, P, Breier, A-C, Brandt, C. Influence of laminar airflow on prosthetic joint infections: a systematic review. J Hosp Infect 2012;81:73–78.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chinn, RY, Sehulster, L. Guidelines for environmental infection control in healthcare facilities: recommendations of CDC and Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee (HICPAC). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention website. https://www.cdc.gov/infectioncontrol/pdf/guidelines/environmental-guidelines-P.pdf. Published 2003. Updated July 2019. Accessed November 2020.Google Scholar
Anderson, DJ, Podgorny, K, Berríos-Torres, SI, et al. Strategies to prevent surgical site infections in acute care hospitals: 2014 update. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2014;35 suppl 2:S66–S88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krovvidi, H. Guidelines for the Provision of Anaesthesia Services (GPAS) guidance on the provision of services for anaesthetic care in the non-theatre environment. Royal College of Anaesthesiologists website. https://rcoa.ac.uk/safety-standards-quality/guidance-resources/guidelines-provision-anaesthetic-services. Published 2016. Accessed November 2020.Google Scholar
Stroup, DF, Berlin, JA, Morton, SC, et al. Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. JAMA 2000;283:2008–2012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gupta, A, Das, A, Majumder, K, et al. Obesity is independently associated with increased risk of hepatocellular cancer–related mortality. Am J Clin Oncol 2018;41:874–881.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hayden, JA, van der Windt, DA, Cartwright, JL, Côté, P, Bombardier, C. Assessing bias in studies of prognostic factors. Ann Intern Med 2013;158:280–286.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Higgins, JP, Thompson, SG, Deeks, JJ, Altman, DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ 2003;327:557–560.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Singh, S, Reddy, S, Shrivastava, R. Does laminar airflow make a difference to the infection rates for lower limb arthroplasty: a study using the National Joint Registry and local surgical site infection data for two hospitals with and without laminar airflow. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 2017;27:261–265.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Langvatn, H, Schrama, JC, Cao, G, et al. Operating room ventilation and the risk of revision due to infection after total hip arthroplasty: assessment of validated data in the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register. J Hosp Infect 2020;105:216–224.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Miner, AL, Losina, E, Katz, JN, Fossel, AH, Platt, R. Deep infection after total knee replacement: impact of laminar airflow systems and body exhaust suits in the modern operating room. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2007;28:222–226.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kakwani, R, Yohannan, D, Wahab, K. The effect of laminar air-flow on the results of Austin-Moore hemiarthroplasty. Injury 2007;38:820–823.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hooper, G, Rothwell, AG, Frampton, C, Wyatt, MC. Does the use of laminar flow and space suits reduce early deep infection after total hip and knee replacement? The ten-year results of the New Zealand Joint Registry. J Bone Joint Surg (Brit) 2011;93:85–90.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Breier, A-C, Brandt, C, Sohr, D, Geffers, C, Gastmeier, P. Laminar airflow ceiling size: no impact on infection rates following hip and knee prosthesis. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2011;32:1097–1102.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Song, K-H, Kim, ES, Kim, YK, et al. Differences in the risk factors for surgical site infection between total hip arthroplasty and total knee arthroplasty in the Korean Nosocomial Infections Surveillance System (KONIS). Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2012;33:1086.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Namba, RS, Inacio, MC, Paxton, EW. Risk factors associated with deep surgical site infections after primary total knee arthroplasty: an analysis of 56,216 knees. J Bone Joint Surg 2013;95:775–782.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pedersen, AB, Svendsson, JE, Johnsen, SP, Riis, A, Overgaard, S. Risk factors for revision due to infection after primary total hip arthroplasty: a population-based study of 80,756 primary procedures in the Danish Hip Arthroplasty Registry. Acta Orthopaed 2010;81:542–547.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Namba, R, Inacio, M, Paxton, E. Risk factors associated with surgical site infection in 30 491 primary total hip replacements. J Bone Joint Surg (Brit) 2012;94:1330–1338.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jeong, SJ, Ann, HW, Kim, JK, et al. Incidence and risk factors for surgical site infection after gastric surgery: a multicenter prospective cohort study. Infect Chemother 2013;45:422–430.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dale, H, Hallan, G, Espehaug, B, Havelin, LI, Engesæter, LB. Increasing risk of revision due to deep infection after hip arthroplasty: a study on 97,344 primary total hip replacements in the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register from 1987 to 2007. Acta Orthopaed 2009;80:639–645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brandt, C, Hott, U, Sohr, D, Daschner, F, Gastmeier, P, Rüden, H. Operating room ventilation with laminar airflow shows no protective effect on the surgical site infection rate in orthopedic and abdominal surgery. Ann Surg 2008;248:695–700.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bosanquet, D, Jones, CN, Gill, N, Jarvis, P, Lewis, MH. Laminar flow reduces cases of surgical site infections in vascular patients. Ann Roy Coll Surg Engl 2013;95:15–19.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kramer, A, Külpmann, R, Wille, F, Christiansen, B. Importance of displacement ventilation for operations and small surgical procedures from the infection preventive point of view. Zentralblatt fur Chirurgie 2009;135:11–17.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Graves, N, Wloch, C, Wilson, J, et al. A cost-effectiveness modelling study of strategies to reduce risk of infection following primary hip replacement based on a systematic review. Health Technol Assess 2016.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Young, SW, Chisholm, C, Zhu, M. Intraoperative contamination and space suits: a potential mechanism. Eur J Ortho Surg Traumatol 2014;24:409–413.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sommerstein, R, Rüegg, C, Kohler, P, Bloemberg, G, Kuster, SP, Sax, H. Transmission of Mycobacterium chimaera from heater–cooler units during cardiac surgery despite an ultraclean air ventilation system. Emerg Infect Dis 2016;22:1008.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yang, L, Huang, C-Y, Zhou, Z-B, et al. Risk factors for hypothermia in patients under general anesthesia: Is there a drawback of laminar airflow operating rooms? A prospective cohort study. Int J Surg 2015;21:14–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wagner, JA, Schreiber, KJ. Improving operating room contamination control. Ashrae J 2014;56:18.Google Scholar
Markel, TA, Gormley, T, Greeley, D, Ostojic, J, Wagner, J. Covering the instrument table decreases bacterial bioburden: an evaluation of environmental quality indicators. Am J Infect Control 2018;46:1127–1133.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Darouiche, RO, Green, DM, Harrington, MA, et al. Association of airborne microorganisms in the operating room with implant infections: a randomized controlled trial. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2017;38:3–10.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed