Instrumental in Surgery: A Narrative Review on Energy-based Surgical Cutting Devices and Surgical Smoke.
Journal
Annals of surgery
ISSN: 1528-1140
Titre abrégé: Ann Surg
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0372354
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 09 2023
01 09 2023
Historique:
medline:
11
8
2023
pubmed:
11
2
2023
entrez:
10
2
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To provide an informed understanding of existing energy-based surgical cutting technologies and aerosol-generating surgical procedures. We provide a perspective on the future innovation and research potential in this space for the benefit of surgeons, physicians, engineers, and researchers alike. Surgery is a treatment for many medical conditions, the success of which depends on surgical cutting instruments that enable surgeons to conduct surgical procedures for tissue cutting and manipulation. Energy-based surgical cutting tools improve accuracy and limit unnecessary destruction of healthy tissues and cells, but can generate surgical smoke and aerosols, which can be handled using surgical smoke evacuation technology. A narrative review was conducted to explore existing literature describing the history and development of energy-based surgical instruments, their mechanisms of action, aerosol-generating medical procedures, surgical smoke and aerosols from aerosol-generating medical procedures, and the recommended mitigation strategies, as well as research on rapid biological tissue analyzing devices to date. Smoke evacuation technology may provide diagnostic information regarding tissue pathology, which could eliminate health concerns and revolutionize surgical accuracy. However, further research into surgical smoke is required to quantify the measurable risk to health it poses, the cutting conditions, under which it is generated and to develop advanced diagnostic approaches using this information.
Sections du résumé
OBJECTIVE
To provide an informed understanding of existing energy-based surgical cutting technologies and aerosol-generating surgical procedures. We provide a perspective on the future innovation and research potential in this space for the benefit of surgeons, physicians, engineers, and researchers alike.
BACKGROUND
Surgery is a treatment for many medical conditions, the success of which depends on surgical cutting instruments that enable surgeons to conduct surgical procedures for tissue cutting and manipulation. Energy-based surgical cutting tools improve accuracy and limit unnecessary destruction of healthy tissues and cells, but can generate surgical smoke and aerosols, which can be handled using surgical smoke evacuation technology.
METHODS
A narrative review was conducted to explore existing literature describing the history and development of energy-based surgical instruments, their mechanisms of action, aerosol-generating medical procedures, surgical smoke and aerosols from aerosol-generating medical procedures, and the recommended mitigation strategies, as well as research on rapid biological tissue analyzing devices to date.
CONCLUSIONS
Smoke evacuation technology may provide diagnostic information regarding tissue pathology, which could eliminate health concerns and revolutionize surgical accuracy. However, further research into surgical smoke is required to quantify the measurable risk to health it poses, the cutting conditions, under which it is generated and to develop advanced diagnostic approaches using this information.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36762559
doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000005816
pii: 00000658-202309000-00021
pmc: PMC10414159
doi:
Substances chimiques
Smoke
0
Aerosols
0
Types de publication
Review
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e457-e465Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors report no conflicts of interest.
Références
Meara JG, Leather AJM, Hagander L, et al. Global Surgery 2030: evidence and solutions for achieving health, welfare, and economic development. Lancet. 2015;386:569–624.
Weiser TG, Haynes AB, Molina G, et al. Size and distribution of the global volume of surgery in 2012. Bull World Health Organ. 2016;94:201–209F.
Marshall J. On the employment of the heat of electricity in practical surgery. J R Soc Med. 1851;MCT-34:221–232.
O’Connor JL, Bloom DA, William T. Bovie and electrosurgery. Surgery. 1996;119:390–396.
Sankaranarayanan G, Resapu RR, Jones DB, et al. Common uses and cited complications of energy in surgery. Surg Endosc. 2013;27:3056–3072.
Horowitz NS, Rader JS. Role of the ultrasonic surgical aspirator in gynecology. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am. 2001;28:775–790.
Flamm ES, Ransohoff J, Wuchinich D, et al. Preliminary experience with ultrasonic aspiration in neurosurgery. Neurosurgery. 1978;2:240–245.
Goldman L. Applications of the laser beam in cancer biology. Int J Cancer. 1966;318:309–318.
Sutton C. Initial experience with carbon dioxide laser laparoscopy. Lasers Med Sci. 1986;1:25–31.
Azadgoli B, Baker RY. Laser applications in surgery. Ann Transl Med. 2016;4:1–7.
Lee SJ, Park KH. Ultrasonic energy in endoscopic surgery. Yonsei Med J. 1999;40:545–545.
Alkatout I, Schollmeyer T, Hawaldar NA, et al. Principles and safety measures of electrosurgery in laparoscopy. JSLS. 2012;16:130–139.
Benias PC, Carr-Locke DL. Principles of electrosurgery. ERCP. 2019:86–92.e81.
Sutton PA, Awad S, Perkins AC, et al. Comparison of lateral thermal spread using monopolar and bipolar diathermy, the Harmonic Scalpel™ and the Ligasure™. Br J Surg. 2010;97:428–433.
Loh SA, Carlson GA, Chang EI, et al. Comparative healing of surgical incisions created by the peak plasmablade, conventional electrosurgery, and a scalpel. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2009;124:1849–1859.
Song C, Tang B, Campbell PA, et al. Thermal spread and heat absorbance differences between open and laparoscopic surgeries during energized dissections by electrosurgical instruments. Surg Endosc. 2009;23:2480–2487.
Dolan EB, Vaughan TJ, Niebur GL, et al. How bone tissue and cells experience elevated temperatures during orthopaedic cutting: an experimental and computational investigation. J Biomech Eng. 2014;136:021019.
Karmani S. The thermal properties of bone and the effects of surgical intervention. Curr Orthop. 2006;20:52–58.
Eriksson AR, Albrektsson T, Magnusson B. Assessment of bone viability after heat trauma. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg. 1984;18:261–268.
Judson SD, Munster VJ. Nosocomial transmission of emerging viruses via aerosol-generating medical procedures. Viruses. 2019;11:940.
Weld KJ, Dryer S, Ames CD, et al. Analysis of surgical smoke produced by various energy-based instruments and effect on laparoscopic visibility. J Endourol. 2007;21:347–351.
Kulkarni P, Baron PA, Willeke K. eds. Aerosol measurement: principles, techniques, and applications. Factors governing pulmonary response to inhaled particulate matter, 3rd edn. NJ, USA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc; 2011:793–800.
Schulz H, Harder V, Ibald-Mulli A, et al. Cardiovascular effects of fine and ultrafine particles. J Aerosol Med. 2005;18:1–22.
Kwon H-S. Ultrafine particles: unique physicochemical properties relevant to health and disease. Exp Mol Med. 2020;52:318–328.
Gao S, Koehler RH, Yermakov M, et al. Performance of facepiece respirators and surgical masks against surgical smoke: Simulated workplace protection factor study. Ann Occup Hyg. 2016;60:608–618.
Nezhat C, Winer WK, Nezhat F, et al. Smoke from laser surgery: is there a health hazard? Lasers Surg Med. 1987;7:376–382.
DesCôteaux JG, Picard P, Poulin ÉC, et al. Preliminary study of electrocautery smoke particles produced in vitro and during laparoscopic procedures. Surg Endosc. 1996;10:152–158.
Karjalainen M, Kontunen A, Saari S, et al. The characterization of surgical smoke from various tissues and its implications for occupational safety. PLoS One. 2018;13:e0195274.
Casey VJ, Martin C, Curtin P, et al. Comparison of surgical smoke generated during electrosurgery with aerosolized particulates from ultrasonic and high-speed cutting. Ann Biomed Eng. 2020;49:560–572.
Dobrogowski M, Wesołowski W, Kucharska M, et al. Chemical composition of surgical smoke formed in the abdominal cavity during laparoscopic cholecystectomy—assessment of the risk to the patient. Int J Occup Med Environ Health. 2014;27:314–325.
Baggish MS, Baltoyannis P, Sze E. Protection of the rat lung from the harmful effects of laser smoke. Lasers Surg Med. 1988;8:248–253.
Roth AA, Tang PC, Ye MJ, et al. Improved autologous cortical bone harvest and viability with 2Flute otologic burs. Laryngoscope. 2018;128:E40–E46.
Fletcher JN, Mew D, DesCôteaux J-G. Dissemination of melanoma cells within electrocautery plume. Am J Surg. 1999;178:57–59.
Nduka CC, Poland N, Kennedy M, et al. Does the ultrasonically activated scalpel release viable airborne cancer cells? Surg Endosc. 1998;12:1031–1034.
In SM, Park DY, Sohn IK, et al. Experimental study of the potential hazards of surgical smoke from powered instruments. Br J Surg. 2015;102:1581–1586.
Garden JM, O’Banion MK, Bakus AD, et al. Viral disease transmitted by laser-generated plume (aerosol). Arch Dermatol. 2002;138:1303–1307.
Garden JM, O’Banion MK, Shelnitz LS, et al. Papillomavirus in the vapor of carbon dioxide laser-treated verrucae. JAMA. 1988;259:1199–1202.
Johnson GK, Robinson WS. Human immunodeficiency virus-1 (HIV-1) in the vapors of surgical power instruments. J Med Virol. 1991;33:47–50.
Dolan EB, Haugh MG, Voisin MC, et al. Thermally induced osteocyte damage initiates a remodelling signaling cascade. PLoS One. 2015;10:1–17.
Tomita Y, Mihashi S, Nagata K, et al. Mutagenicity of smoke condensates induced by CO 2 -laser irradiation and electrocauterization. Mutat Res. 1981;89:145–149.
Hill DS, O’Neill JK, Powell RJ, et al. Surgical smoke—a health hazard in the operating theatre: a study to quantify exposure and a survey of the use of smoke extractor systems in UK plastic surgery units. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2012;65:911–916.
York K, Autry M. Surgical smoke: putting the pieces together to become smoke-free. AORN J. 2018;107:692–703.
OSHA. Electrosurgery Plume. Accessed February 24, 2023. https://www.osha.gov/etools/hospitals/surgical-suite/smoke-plume
AORN. Legislative and regulatory initiatives requiring surgical smoke evacuation. Accessed February 24, 2023. https://www.aorn.org/government-affairs/policy-agenda/surgical-smoke-free-or
Okoshi K, Kobayashi K, Kinoshita K, et al. Health risks associated with exposure to surgical smoke for surgeons and operation room personnel. Surg Today. 2015;45:957–965.
Gates MA, Feskanich D, Speizer FE, et al. Operating room nursing and lung cancer risk in a cohort female registered nurses. Scand J Work Environ Health. 2007;33:140–147.
Navarro-Meza MC, González-Baltazar R, Aldrete-Rodríguez MG, et al. Respiratory symptoms caused by the use of electrocautery in physicians in surgical training at a hospital in Mexico [Síntomas respiratorios causados por el uso del electrocauterio en médicos en formación quirúrgica de un hospital de México]. Rev Peru Med Exp Salud Pública. 2013;30:41–44.
Ball K. Compliance with surgical smoke evacuation guidelines: implications for practice. AORN J. 2010;92:142–149.
Ball K. Surgical smoke evacuation guidelines: compliance among perioperative nurses. AORN J. 2010;92:e1–e23.
Le Moual N, Varraso R, Zock JP, et al. Are operating room nurses at higher risk of severe persistent asthma? the nurse’s health study. J Occup Environ Med. 2013;55:973–977.
Hallmo P, Naess O. Laryngeal papillomatosis with human papillomavirus DNA contracted by a laser surgeon. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 1991;248:425–427.
Calero L, Brusis T. Laryngeal papillomatosis—First recognition as Occupational disease in a surgical nurse [Larynxpapillomatose—Erstmalige Anerkennung als Berufskrankheit bei einer OP-Schwester]. Laryngo- Rhino- Otologie. 2003;82:790–793.
Schultz L. An analysis of surgical smoke plume components, capture, and evacuation. AORN J. 2014;99:289–298.
CooperSurgical. Passive Laparoscopic Smoke Evacuation. Accessed February 24, 2023. https://www.coopersurgical.com/our-brands/seeclear/
Seipp H-M, Steffens T, Weigold J, et al. Efficiencies and noise levels of portable surgical smoke evacuation systems. J Occup Environ Hyg. 2018;15:773–781.
Edwards BE, Reiman RE. Results of a survey on current surgical smoke control practices. AORN J. 2008;87:739–749.
Edwards BE, Reiman RE. Comparison of current and past surgical smoke control practices. AORN J. 2012;95:337–350.
Coia JE, Ritchie L, Adisesh A, et al. Guidance on the use of respiratory and facial protection equipment. J Hosp Infec. 2013;85:170–182.
Lee SA, Hwang DC, Li HY, et al. Particle size-selective assessment of protection of european standard FFP respirators and surgical masks against particles-tested with human subjects. J Healthc Eng. 2016;2016:8572493.
Pan M, Lednicky JA, Wu CY. Collection, particle sizing and detection of airborne viruses. J Appl Microbiol. 2019;127:1596–1611.
Workman AD, Jafari A, Welling DB, et al. Airborne aerosol generation during endonasal procedures in the era of COVID-19: risks and recommendations. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2020;163:465–470.
Workman AD, Welling DB, Carter BS, et al. Endonasal instrumentation and aerosolization risk in the era of COVID-19: simulation, literature review, and proposed mitigation strategies. Int Forum Allergy Rhinol. 2020;10:798–805.
Sharma D, Rubel KE, Ye MJ, et al. Cadaveric simulation of endoscopic endonasal procedures: analysis of droplet splatter patterns during the COVID-19 pandemic. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2020;163:145–150.
David AP, Jiam NT, Reither JM, et al. Endoscopic skull base and transoral surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic: minimizing droplet spread with a negative-pressure otolaryngology viral isolation drape (NOVID). Head Neck. 2020;42:1577–1582.
Ostapovych U, Vortman R. Implementing a surgical smoke evacuation policy and procedure: a quality improvement project. AORN J. 2022;115:139–146.
Williams K. Guidelines in practice: surgical smoke safety. AORN J. 2022;116:145–159.
Locke L, Dada O, Shedd JS. Aerosol transmission of infectious disease and the efficacy of personal protective equipment (PPE): a systematic review. J Occup Environ Med. 2021;63:e783–e791.
Stewart CL, Raoof M, Lingeman R, et al. A quantitative analysis of surgical smoke exposure as an occupational hazard. Ann Surg. 2021;274:306–311.
Antunes D, Lami M, Chukwudi A, et al. COVID-19 infection risk by open and laparoscopic surgical smoke: a systematic review of the literature. Surgeon. 2021;19:e452–e461.
Bracale U, Silvestri V, Pontecorvi E, et al. Smoke evacuation during laparoscopic surgery: a problem beyond the COVID-19 period. A quantitative analysis of CO2 environmental dispersion using different devices. Surg Innov. 2022;29:154–159.
Brüske-Hohlfeld I, Preissler G, Jauch K-W, et al. Surgical smoke and ultrafine particles. J Occup Med Toxicol. 2008;3:1–6.
Andréasson SN, Anundi H, Sahlberg B, et al. Peritonectomy with high voltage electrocautery generates higher levels of ultrafine smoke particles. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2009;35:780–784.
Balog J, Sasi-Szabo L, Kinross J, et al. Intraoperative tissue identification using rapid evaporative ionization mass spectrometry. Sci Transl Med. 2013;5:194ra193.
Boughey JC, Hieken TJ, Jakub JW, et al. Impact of analysis of frozen-section margin on reoperation rates in women undergoing lumpectomy for breast cancer: evaluation of the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program data. Surgery. 2014;156:190–197.
St John ER, Al-Khudairi R, Ashrafian H, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of intraoperative techniques for margin assessment in breast cancer surgery: a meta-analysis. Ann Surg. 2017;265:300–310.
Kobbermann A, Unzeitig A, Xie XJ, et al. Impact of routine cavity shave margins on breast cancer re-excision rates. Ann Surg Oncol. 2011;18:1349–1355.
Marcus D, Phelps DL, Savage A, et al. Point-of-care diagnosis of endometrial cancer using the surgical intelligent knife (iKnife)-a prospective pilot study of diagnostic accuracy. Cancers (Basel). 2022;14:5892.
Tzafetas M, Mitra A, Paraskevaidi M, et al. The intelligent knife (iKnife) and its intraoperative diagnostic advantage for the treatment of cervical disease. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2020;117:7338–7346.
Eberlin LS, Norton I, Orringer D, et al. Ambient mass spectrometry for the intraoperative molecular diagnosis of human brain tumors. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2013;110:1611–1616.
Jarmusch AK, Pirro V, Baird Z, et al. Lipid and metabolite profiles of human brain tumors by desorption electrospray ionization-MS. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2016;113:1486–1491.
Kontunen A, Karjalainen M, Lekkala J, et al. Tissue identification in a porcine model by differential ion mobility spectrometry analysis of surgical smoke. Ann Biomed Eng. 2018;46:1091–1100.
Bennett HE, Taylor SD, Fugett JH, et al. Assessment of penetrating thermal tissue damage/spread associated with PhotonBlade (TM), Valleylab (TM) Pencil, Valleylab (TM) EDGE (TM) Coated Pencil, PlasmaBlade (R) 3.0S and PlasmaBlade (R) 4.0 for intraoperative tissue dissection using the fresh extirpated porcine muscle model. Energy-Based Treatment of Tissue and Assessment Ix. 2017;10066. https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/conference-proceedings-of-spie/10066/100660J/Assessment-of-penetrating-thermal-tissue-damage-spread-associated-with-PhotonBlade/10.1117/12.2252111.short?tab=ArticleLink
de Boorder T, Verdaasdonk R, Klaessens J. The visualisation of surgical smoke produced by energy delivery devices: significance and effectiveness of evacuation systems. Thermal Treatment of Tissue: Energy Delivery and Assessment Iv. 2007;6440. https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/conference-proceedings-of-spie/6440/64400R/The-visualization-of-surgical-smoke-produced-by-energy-delivery-devices/10.1117/12.701308.short
Sisler JD, Shaffer J, Soo JC, et al. In vitro toxicological evaluation of surgical smoke from human tissue. J Occup Med Toxicol. 2018;13:1–11.