Surgical site infection is associated with a substantial healthcare burden and remains one of the most challenging complications to treat. Airborne particles carrying contaminating micro-organisms are responsible for the majority of these infections.
Methods:
Various operating theater ventilatory systems have been developed to prevent direct airborne bacterial inoculation of the surgical wound. Laminar air flow uses positive pressure air currents through filtration units to direct air streams away from the operative field in order to create an ultraclean zone around the operative site.
Discussion:
Early studies reported lower infection rates with laminar air flow and therefore it became the accepted standard for implant-related surgery. However, more recent evidence has questioned its clinical importance. The purpose of this article is to review contemporary laminar air flow handling systems and the current evidence behind their use.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BadiaJM, CaseyAL, PetrosilloN, et al.Impact of surgical site infection on healthcare costs and patient outcomes: A systematic review in six European countries. J Hosp Infect, 2017; 96:1–15.
2.
BanKA, MineiJP, LarongaC, et al.American College of Surgeons and Surgical Infection Society: Surgical Site Infection Guidelines, 2016 Update. J Am Coll Surg, 2017; 224:59–74.
3.
Public Health England. Surveillance of surgical site infections in NHS hospitals in England, 2016 to 2017. Public Health England, December2017. www.gov.uk/phe (Last accessed December5, 2018)
4.
WhyteW, HodgsonR, TinklerJ. The importance of airborne bacterial contamination of wounds. J Hosp Infect, 1982; 3:123–135.
5.
HeX, KarraS, PaksereshtP, et al.Effect of heated-air blanket on the dispersion of squames in an operating room. Int J Numer Method Biomed Eng, 2018; 34:e2960.
6.
ChauveauxD. Preventing surgical-site infections: Measures other than antibiotics. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res, 2015; 101(1 Suppl):S77–83.
7.
HansenD, KrabsC, BennerD, et al.Laminar air flow provides high air quality in the operating field even during real operating conditions, but personal protection seems to be necessary in operations with tissue combustion. Int J Hyg Environ Health, 2005; 208:455–460.
8.
BannisterG. Prevention of infection in joint replacement. Curr Orthop, 2002; 16:426–433.
9.
SchierholzJM, BeuthJ. Implant infections: A haven for opportunistic bacteria. J Hosp Infect, 2001; 49:87–93.
10.
PorterKW. Laminar flow comes under attack. Hospitals, 1972; 46:142 passim.
11.
AbrahamG, Le Blanc SmithPM, McCabeP. HEPA filter replacement experience in a biological laboratory. Appl Biosaf, 1998; 3:134–142.
12.
BintcliffeIW. Effects of using a Charnley-Howorth enclosure in a district general hospital. J R Soc Med, 1983; 76:262–265.
13.
JämsenE, FurnesO, EngesæterLB, et al.Prevention of deep infection in joint replacement surgery. Acta Orthop, 2010; 81:660–666.
14.
CharnleyJ, EftekharN. Postoperative infection in total prosthetic replacement arthroplasty of the hip-joint, with special reference to the bacterial content of the air of the operating room. Br J Surg, 1969; 56:641–649.
15.
CharnleyJ. Postoperative infection after total hip replacement with special reference to air contamination in the operating room. Clin Orthop Relat Res, 1972; 87:167–187.
16.
LidwellOM, LowburyEJ, WhyteW, BlowersR, StanleySJ, LoweD. Effect of ultraclean air in operating rooms on deep sepsis in the joint after total hip or knee replacement: A randomized study. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed), 1982; 285:10–14.
17.
SalvatiEA, RobinsonRP, ZenoSM, et al.Infection rates after 3175 total hip and total knee replacements performed with and without a horizontal unidirectional filtered air-flow system. J Bone Joint Surg Am, 1982; 64:525–535.
18.
AhlT, DalénN, JörbeckH, HobornJ. Air contamination during hip and knee arthroplasties. Horizontal laminar flow randomized vs. conventional ventilation. Acta Orthop Scand, 1995; 66:17–20.
19.
KakwaniRG, YohannanD, WahabKH. The effect of laminar air-flow on the results of Austin-Moore hemiarthroplasty. Injury, 2007; 38:820–823.
20.
BreierAC, BrandtC, SohrD, GeffersC, GastmeierP. Laminar airflow ceiling size: No impact on infection rates following hip and knee prosthesis. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol, 2011; 32:1097–1102.
21.
HooperGJ, RothwellAG, FramptonC, WyattMC. 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 Br, 2011; 93:85–90.
22.
SmithJO, FramptonCMA, HooperGJ, YoungSW. The impact of patient and surgical factors on the rate of postoperative infection after total hip arthroplasty: A New Zealand Joint Registry Study. J Arthroplasty, 2018; 33:1884–1890.
23.
SinghS, ReddyS, ShrivastavaR. 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.
24.
GastmeierP, BreierAC, BrandtC. Influence of laminar airflow on prosthetic joint infections: A systematic review. J Hosp Infect, 2012; 81:73–78.
25.
BischoffP, KubilayNZ, AllegranziB, et al.Effect of laminar airflow ventilation on surgical site infections: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Infect Dis, 2017; 17:553–561.
26.
LeaperDJ, EdmistonCE. World Health Organization: Global guidelines for the prevention of surgical site infection. J Hosp Infect, 2017; 95:135–136.
27.
Second International Consensus Meeting an Prosthetic Joint Infection. https://icmphilly.com/document/ (last accessed November14, 2018).
28.
EvansRP. Current concepts for clean air and total joint arthroplasty: laminar airflow and ultraviolet radiation: A systematic review. Clin Orthop Relat Res, 2011; 469:945–953.
29.
KapadiaBH, McElroyMJ, IssaK, et al.The economic impact of periprosthetic infections following total knee arthroplasty at a specialized tertiary-care center. J Arthroplasty, 2014; 29:929–932.
30.
KapadiaBH, BanerjeeS, CherianJJ, et al.The economic impact of periprosthetic infections after total hip arthroplasty at a specialized tertiary-care center. J Arthroplasty, 2016; 31:1422–1426.
31.
CacciariP, GiannoniR, MarcelliE, CercenelliL. Cost evaluation of a ventilation system for operating theatre: An ultraclean design versus a conventional one [in Italian]. Ann Ig, 2004; 16:803–809.
32.
SeippHM, SprengelM, WagnerKH. Differentiation of allotments for occupationally necessary and hygiene relevant costs of air technology designs for operating rooms [in German]. Zentralbl Hyg Umweltmed, 1994; 195:398–410.
33.
MerolliniKM, CrawfordRW, WhitehouseSL, GravesN. Surgical site infection prevention following total hip arthroplasty in Australia: A cost-effectiveness analysis. Am J Infect Control, 2013; 41:803–809.
34.
Erichsen AnderssonA, PetzoldM, BerghI, et al.Comparison between mixed and laminar airflow systems in operating rooms and the influence of human factors: Experiences from a Swedish orthopedic center. Am J Infect Control. 2014; 42:665–669.
35.
GruenbergMF, CampanerGL, SolaCA, OrtolanEG. Ultraclean air for prevention of postoperative infection after posterior spinal fusion with instrumentation: A comparison between surgeries performed with and without a vertical exponential filtered air-flow system. Spine, 2004; 29:2330–2334.
36.
Simsek YavuzS, BicerY, YapiciN, et al.Analysis of risk factors for sternal surgical site infection: Emphasizing the appropriate ventilation of the operating theaters. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol, 2006; 27:958–963.
37.
JeongSJ, AnnHW, KimJK, et al.Incidence and risk factors for surgical site infection after gastric surgery: A multicenter prospective cohort study. Infect Chemother, 2013; 45:422–430.
38.
BosanquetDC, JonesCN, GillN, et al.Laminar flow reduces cases of surgical site infections in vascular patients. Ann R Coll Surg Engl, 2013; 95:15–19.
39.
OguzR, Diab-ElschahawiM, BergerJ, et al.Airborne bacterial contamination during orthopedic surgery: A randomized controlled pilot trial. J Clin Anesth, 2017; 38:160–164.
40.
PinderEM, BottleA, AylinP, et al.Does laminar flow ventilation reduce the rate of infection? An observational study of trauma in England. Bone Joint J, 2016; 98-B:1262–269.
41.
SadrizadehS, HolmbergS. Surgical clothing systems in laminar airflow operating room: A numerical assessment. J Infect Public Health, 2014; 7:508–516.
42.
RefaieR, RushtonP, McGovernP, et al.The effect of operating lights on laminar flow: an experimental study using neutrally buoyant helium bubbles. Bone Joint J, 2017; 99-B:1061–1066.
43.
NoguchiC, KosekiH, HoriuchiH, et al.Factors contributing to airborne particle dispersal in the operating room. BMC Surg, 2017; 17:78.
44.
RezapoorM, AlvandA, JacekE, et al.Operating room traffic increases aerosolized particles and compromises the air quality: A simulated study. J Arthroplasty, 2018; 33:851–855.
45.
SmithEB, RaphaelIJ, MaltenfortMG, et al.The effect of laminar air flow and door openings on operating room contamination. J Arthroplasty, 2013; 28:1482–1485.
46.
PerezP, HollowayJ, EhrenfeldL, et al.Door openings in the operating room are associated with increased environmental contamination. Am J Infect Control, 2018; 46:954–956.
47.
SehjalR, BaktiN, GoddardR. Effect of an anaesthetic screening drape on vertical laminar airflow. J Hosp Infect, 2017; 96:331–335.
McGovernPD, AlbrechtM, BelaniKG, et al.Forced-air warming and ultra-clean ventilation do not mix: An investigation of theatre ventilation, patient warming and joint replacement infection in orthopaedics. J Bone Joint Surg Br, 2011; 93:1537–1544.
50.
HeX, KarraS, PaksereshtP, et al.Effect of heated-air blanket on the dispersion of squames in an operating room. Int J Numer Method Biomed Eng, 2018; 34:e2960.
