Advanced

Temperature-controlled airflow ventilation in operating rooms compared with laminar airflow and turbulent mixed airflow

Alsved, M. LU ; Civilis, A.; Ekolind, P.; Tammelin, A.; Andersson, A. Erichsen; Jakobsson, J. LU ; Svensson, T.; Ramstorp, M. LU ; Sadrizadeh, S. and Larsson, P. A. LU , et al. (2018) In Journal of Hospital Infection 98(2). p.181-190
Abstract

Aim: To evaluate three types of ventilation systems for operating rooms with respect to air cleanliness [in colony-forming units (cfu/m3)], energy consumption and comfort of working environment (noise and draught) as reported by surgical team members. Methods: Two commonly used ventilation systems, vertical laminar airflow (LAF) and turbulent mixed airflow (TMA), were compared with a newly developed ventilation technique, temperature-controlled airflow (TcAF). The cfu concentrations were measured at three locations in an operating room during 45 orthopaedic procedures: close to the wound (<40cm), at the instrument table and peripherally in the room. The operating team evaluated the comfort of the working... (More)

Aim: To evaluate three types of ventilation systems for operating rooms with respect to air cleanliness [in colony-forming units (cfu/m3)], energy consumption and comfort of working environment (noise and draught) as reported by surgical team members. Methods: Two commonly used ventilation systems, vertical laminar airflow (LAF) and turbulent mixed airflow (TMA), were compared with a newly developed ventilation technique, temperature-controlled airflow (TcAF). The cfu concentrations were measured at three locations in an operating room during 45 orthopaedic procedures: close to the wound (<40cm), at the instrument table and peripherally in the room. The operating team evaluated the comfort of the working environment by answering a questionnaire. Findings: LAF and TcAF, but not TMA, resulted in less than 10cfu/m3 at all measurement locations in the room during surgery. Median values of cfu/m3 close to the wound (250 samples) were 0 for LAF, 1 for TcAF and 10 for TMA. Peripherally in the room, the cfu concentrations were lowest for TcAF. The cfu concentrations did not scale proportionally with airflow rates. Compared with LAF, the power consumption of TcAF was 28% lower and there was significantly less disturbance from noise and draught. Conclusion: TcAF and LAF remove bacteria more efficiently from the air than TMA, especially close to the wound and at the instrument table. Like LAF, the new TcAF ventilation system maintained very low levels of cfu in the air, but TcAF used substantially less energy and provided a more comfortable working environment than LAF. This enables energy savings with preserved air quality.

(Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
, et al. (More)
(Less)
organization
publishing date
type
Contribution to journal
publication status
published
subject
keywords
Air sampling, BioTrak, Energy efficiency, Fluorescence, Surgical site infection, Temperature-controlled ventilation
in
Journal of Hospital Infection
volume
98
issue
2
pages
181 - 190
publisher
Elsevier
external identifiers
  • scopus:85034808911
ISSN
0195-6701
DOI
10.1016/j.jhin.2017.10.013
language
English
LU publication?
yes
id
529a24d2-f826-4504-9177-6f399f982346
date added to LUP
2017-12-28 14:39:35
date last changed
2018-03-30 03:00:09
@article{529a24d2-f826-4504-9177-6f399f982346,
  abstract     = {<p>Aim: To evaluate three types of ventilation systems for operating rooms with respect to air cleanliness [in colony-forming units (cfu/m<sup>3</sup>)], energy consumption and comfort of working environment (noise and draught) as reported by surgical team members. Methods: Two commonly used ventilation systems, vertical laminar airflow (LAF) and turbulent mixed airflow (TMA), were compared with a newly developed ventilation technique, temperature-controlled airflow (T<sub>c</sub>AF). The cfu concentrations were measured at three locations in an operating room during 45 orthopaedic procedures: close to the wound (&lt;40cm), at the instrument table and peripherally in the room. The operating team evaluated the comfort of the working environment by answering a questionnaire. Findings: LAF and T<sub>c</sub>AF, but not TMA, resulted in less than 10cfu/m<sup>3</sup> at all measurement locations in the room during surgery. Median values of cfu/m<sup>3</sup> close to the wound (250 samples) were 0 for LAF, 1 for T<sub>c</sub>AF and 10 for TMA. Peripherally in the room, the cfu concentrations were lowest for T<sub>c</sub>AF. The cfu concentrations did not scale proportionally with airflow rates. Compared with LAF, the power consumption of T<sub>c</sub>AF was 28% lower and there was significantly less disturbance from noise and draught. Conclusion: T<sub>c</sub>AF and LAF remove bacteria more efficiently from the air than TMA, especially close to the wound and at the instrument table. Like LAF, the new T<sub>c</sub>AF ventilation system maintained very low levels of cfu in the air, but T<sub>c</sub>AF used substantially less energy and provided a more comfortable working environment than LAF. This enables energy savings with preserved air quality.</p>},
  author       = {Alsved, M. and Civilis, A. and Ekolind, P. and Tammelin, A. and Andersson, A. Erichsen and Jakobsson, J. and Svensson, T. and Ramstorp, M. and Sadrizadeh, S. and Larsson, P. A. and Bohgard, M. and Šantl-Temkiv, T. and Löndahl, J.},
  issn         = {0195-6701},
  keyword      = {Air sampling,BioTrak,Energy efficiency,Fluorescence,Surgical site infection,Temperature-controlled ventilation},
  language     = {eng},
  number       = {2},
  pages        = {181--190},
  publisher    = {Elsevier},
  series       = {Journal of Hospital Infection},
  title        = {Temperature-controlled airflow ventilation in operating rooms compared with laminar airflow and turbulent mixed airflow},
  url          = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhin.2017.10.013},
  volume       = {98},
  year         = {2018},
}