Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Temperature-controlled airflow ventilation in operating rooms compared with laminar airflow and turbulent mixed airflow
Show others and affiliations
2018 (English)In: Journal of Hospital Infection, ISSN 0195-6701, E-ISSN 1532-2939, Vol. 98, no 2, p. 181-190Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Aim: To evaluate three types of ventilation systems for operating rooms with respect to air cleanliness [in colony-forming units (cfu/m(3))], 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(c)AF). The cfu concentrations were measured at three locations in an operating room during 45 orthopaedic procedures: close to the wound (<40 cm), 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(c)AF, but not TMA, resulted in less than 10 cfu/m(3) at all measurement locations in the room during surgery. Median values of cfu/m(3) close to the wound (250 samples) were 0 for LAF, 1 for T(c)AF and 10 for TMA. Peripherally in the room, the cfu concentrations were lowest for T(c)AF. The cfu concentrations did not scale proportionally with airflow rates. Compared with LAF, the power consumption of T(c)AF was 28% lower and there was significantly less disturbance from noise and draught. Conclusion: T(c)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(c)AF ventilation system maintained very low levels of cfu in the air, but T(c)AF used substantially less energy and provided a more comfortable working environment than LAF. This enables energy savings with preserved air quality.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
W B SAUNDERS CO LTD , 2018. Vol. 98, no 2, p. 181-190
Keywords [en]
Surgical site infection, BioTrak, Fluorescence, Energy efficiency, Temperature-controlled, ventilation, Air sampling
National Category
Earth and Related Environmental Sciences
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:kth:diva-223799DOI: 10.1016/j.jhin.2017.10.013ISI: 000425104000013PubMedID: 29074054Scopus ID: 2-s2.0-85034808911OAI: oai:DiVA.org:kth-223799DiVA, id: diva2:1188249
Funder
Swedish Research Council Formas, 2014-1460Swedish Energy Agency, 2016-004864
Note

QC 20180307

Available from: 2018-03-07 Created: 2018-03-07 Last updated: 2018-03-07Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full textPubMedScopus

Authority records BETA

Sadrizadeh, Sasan

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Sadrizadeh, Sasan
By organisation
Fluid and Climate Technology
In the same journal
Journal of Hospital Infection
Earth and Related Environmental Sciences

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn
Total: 71 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf