Cargando…

Comparison of Surgical Smoke Generated During Electrosurgery with Aerosolized Particulates from Ultrasonic and High-Speed Cutting

“Surgical smoke” is an airborne by-product of electrosurgery comprised of vapour and suspended particles. Although concerns exist that exposure may be harmful, there is a poor understanding of the smoke in terms of particle size, morphology, composition and biological viability. Notably, it is not k...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Casey, Vincent J., Martin, Cian, Curtin, Peter, Buckley, Kevin, McNamara, Laoise M.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer International Publishing 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7413221/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32770304
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10439-020-02587-w
_version_ 1783568759005380608
author Casey, Vincent J.
Martin, Cian
Curtin, Peter
Buckley, Kevin
McNamara, Laoise M.
author_facet Casey, Vincent J.
Martin, Cian
Curtin, Peter
Buckley, Kevin
McNamara, Laoise M.
author_sort Casey, Vincent J.
collection PubMed
description “Surgical smoke” is an airborne by-product of electrosurgery comprised of vapour and suspended particles. Although concerns exist that exposure may be harmful, there is a poor understanding of the smoke in terms of particle size, morphology, composition and biological viability. Notably, it is not known how the biological tissue source and cutting method influence the smoke. The objective of this study was to develop a collection method for airborne by-product from surgical cutting. This would enable comprehensive analyses of the particulate burden, composition and biological viability. The method was applied to compare the electrosurgical smoke generated (in the absence of any evacuation mechanism) with the aerosolized/airborne by-products generated by ultrasonic and high-speed cutting, from bone and liver tissue cutting. We report a wide range of particle sizes (0.93–806.31 μm for bone, 0.05–1040.43 μm for liver) with 50% of the particles being <2.72 μm (~PM(2.5)) and 90% being <10 μm (PM(10)). EDX and biochemical analysis reveal components of biological cells and cellular metabolic activity in particulate from liver tissue cut by electrosurgery and ultrasonic cutting. We show for the first time however that bone saws and ultrasonic cutting do not liberate viable cells from bone.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7413221
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Springer International Publishing
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-74132212020-08-10 Comparison of Surgical Smoke Generated During Electrosurgery with Aerosolized Particulates from Ultrasonic and High-Speed Cutting Casey, Vincent J. Martin, Cian Curtin, Peter Buckley, Kevin McNamara, Laoise M. Ann Biomed Eng Original Article “Surgical smoke” is an airborne by-product of electrosurgery comprised of vapour and suspended particles. Although concerns exist that exposure may be harmful, there is a poor understanding of the smoke in terms of particle size, morphology, composition and biological viability. Notably, it is not known how the biological tissue source and cutting method influence the smoke. The objective of this study was to develop a collection method for airborne by-product from surgical cutting. This would enable comprehensive analyses of the particulate burden, composition and biological viability. The method was applied to compare the electrosurgical smoke generated (in the absence of any evacuation mechanism) with the aerosolized/airborne by-products generated by ultrasonic and high-speed cutting, from bone and liver tissue cutting. We report a wide range of particle sizes (0.93–806.31 μm for bone, 0.05–1040.43 μm for liver) with 50% of the particles being <2.72 μm (~PM(2.5)) and 90% being <10 μm (PM(10)). EDX and biochemical analysis reveal components of biological cells and cellular metabolic activity in particulate from liver tissue cut by electrosurgery and ultrasonic cutting. We show for the first time however that bone saws and ultrasonic cutting do not liberate viable cells from bone. Springer International Publishing 2020-08-07 2021 /pmc/articles/PMC7413221/ /pubmed/32770304 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10439-020-02587-w Text en © Biomedical Engineering Society 2020 This article is made available via the PMC Open Access Subset for unrestricted research re-use and secondary analysis in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for the duration of the World Health Organization (WHO) declaration of COVID-19 as a global pandemic.
spellingShingle Original Article
Casey, Vincent J.
Martin, Cian
Curtin, Peter
Buckley, Kevin
McNamara, Laoise M.
Comparison of Surgical Smoke Generated During Electrosurgery with Aerosolized Particulates from Ultrasonic and High-Speed Cutting
title Comparison of Surgical Smoke Generated During Electrosurgery with Aerosolized Particulates from Ultrasonic and High-Speed Cutting
title_full Comparison of Surgical Smoke Generated During Electrosurgery with Aerosolized Particulates from Ultrasonic and High-Speed Cutting
title_fullStr Comparison of Surgical Smoke Generated During Electrosurgery with Aerosolized Particulates from Ultrasonic and High-Speed Cutting
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of Surgical Smoke Generated During Electrosurgery with Aerosolized Particulates from Ultrasonic and High-Speed Cutting
title_short Comparison of Surgical Smoke Generated During Electrosurgery with Aerosolized Particulates from Ultrasonic and High-Speed Cutting
title_sort comparison of surgical smoke generated during electrosurgery with aerosolized particulates from ultrasonic and high-speed cutting
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7413221/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32770304
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10439-020-02587-w
work_keys_str_mv AT caseyvincentj comparisonofsurgicalsmokegeneratedduringelectrosurgerywithaerosolizedparticulatesfromultrasonicandhighspeedcutting
AT martincian comparisonofsurgicalsmokegeneratedduringelectrosurgerywithaerosolizedparticulatesfromultrasonicandhighspeedcutting
AT curtinpeter comparisonofsurgicalsmokegeneratedduringelectrosurgerywithaerosolizedparticulatesfromultrasonicandhighspeedcutting
AT buckleykevin comparisonofsurgicalsmokegeneratedduringelectrosurgerywithaerosolizedparticulatesfromultrasonicandhighspeedcutting
AT mcnamaralaoisem comparisonofsurgicalsmokegeneratedduringelectrosurgerywithaerosolizedparticulatesfromultrasonicandhighspeedcutting