Baseline Study of Ultra-Clean Air Change Rate,Number,and Type of Microorganisms and Level of Particles During Trauma Surgery

Abstract

Background: The objective of an operating room (OR) ultra-clean ventilation system is to eliminate or reduce the quantity of dust particles and colony-forming units per cubic meter of air (CFU/m³). To achieve this, ultra-clean goal high air change rates per hour are required to reduce the particle load and number of CFU/m³. Aim: To determine the air quality in an ultra-clean OR during surgery, in terms of the number and type of microorganism and quantity of dust particles in order to establish a benchmark. Methods: Number of CFUs and the quantity of dust particles were measured. For measuring the CFUs, sterile extraction hoses were positioned at the incision, the furthest away positioned instrument table, and the periphery. At these locations, air was extracted to determine the quantity of dust particles. Findings: The number of CFU/m³ and particles was on average at wound level ≤1 CFU/m³ resp. 852.679 particles, at instrument table ≤1 CFU/m³ resp. 3.797 particles and in the periphery ≤8 CFU/m³, resp. 4.355 particles. Conclusion: The number of CFUs in the ultra-clean area is below the defined ultra-clean level of ≤10 CFU/m³ for ultra-clean surgery. The quantity of dust particles measured during surgery was higher than the defined ISO 5.

Keywords

operating room colony-forming units infection prevention ultra clean ventilation systems instrument tables surgical procedure

Introduction

The objective of an operating room (OR) ultra-clean ventilation (UCV) system is to eliminate or reduce the quantity of dust particles and colony-forming units per cubic meter of air (CFU/m³). To achieve this goal, high air change rates per hour (ACH) are required to reduce the particle load and number of CFU/m³ (Langvatn et al., 2020; Lans et al., 2022).

The Dutch Federation of Medical Specialists (FMS) recently introduced a guideline for air handling in operating and treatment rooms (Kennisinstituut van de federatie van medisch specialisten, 2022). Only major orthopedic implant surgeries and major spinal surgeries (e.g., scoliosis) should be performed in a Class 1+ (Kennisinstituut van de federatie van medisch specialisten, 2022) OR. A Class 1+ OR corresponds to a Class 1 (DIN 1946-4: 2018-09, 2018; SIS-TS, 2015) OR according to international standards, where ultra-clean (HTM-03-01 Part A, n.d.; SIS-TS, 2015) air is defined as air which contains ≤10 CFU/m³. Other surgeries (Kennisinstituut van de federatie van medisch specialisten, 2022) could be performed in a generic OR with conventional (mixing) ventilation (CV) system with an air change rate of ≥20 h⁻¹. This is in line with the WHO (World Health Organization, 2016) and for generic surgery with other international standards (DIN 1946-4: 2018-09, 2018; HTM-03-01 Part A, n.d.; NF S 90 351, 2013; Schweizerischer Verein von Gebäudetechnik-Ingenieuren, 2015; SIS-TS 39(E):2015, 2015). Evidence of the relation between higher ACH and a reduction of the number of surgical site infections (SSI) at most types of surgeries is weak (Kennisinstituut van de federatie van medisch specialisten, 2022; World Health Organization, 2016). Therefore, in accordance with their guideline, the FMS recommends a lower number of air changes per hour. Previous studies, during real (Agodi et al., 2015; Knudsen et al., 2021; Tammelin et al., 2023) or simulated surgery (Marsault et al., 2021), defined the air quality in terms of CFUs and sometimes dust particles directly and only underneath the Unidirectional Air Flow (UDAF) system and did not determine the measured number and type of microorganism close to the wound site and at the instrument table or in the periphery.

To date, most ORs in Dutch hospitals are built as an ultra-clean (Lans et al., 2023) OR. Since the recent FMS recommendation to reduce the number of air changes per hour for most surgeries, there is a need for a primary benchmark regarding the number and type of microorganisms and dust particles measured during real surgery at the wound site, instrument table, and periphery, measured in an ultra-clean OR. The present baseline study can be used as a contribution to the existing body of work (Knudsen et al., 2021; Marsault et al., 2021; Pedersen et al., 2019; Romano, Milani, Ricci, et al., 2020; Scaltriti et al., 2007; Tammelin et al., 2023) leading to a benchmark.

Methods

The measurements were executed in an OR at Reinier de Graaf Hospital (Delft, the Netherlands) during 29 different types of surgeries. The OR in this study was equipped with a UDAF system and classified as an ultra-clean OR class 1+. The UDAF system introduces the air directly (and only) above the protected area (see Figure 1). The staff present during surgery wore modern scrub suits made out of 99% polyester and 1% carbon fibers (Ljungqvist et al., 2015). The source strength using this type of clothing was 2.9 (0.9–5.7) CFU/s per person (Ljungqvist et al., 2015). The surface of the UDAF was 10.5 m², and the total air volume introduced was 11.340 m³/h, which was 71 air changes per hour (ACH).

Figure 1.

Working principle Unidirectional Air Flow (UDAF).

Colony-Forming Unit Measurements

For the CFU measurements, sterile sample extraction hoses were positioned at three locations in the OR. The extraction hoses were positioned by the surgical staff at the location (<5 cm) of the incision, at the furthest away positioned instrument table from the surgical site and in the periphery close to an air extraction point (see Figure 2). The material of the sample tube was 1515 “python” neoprene hose dimensions Ø15 × 21(mm), temperature resistance: −20°C to +100°C. The maximum length of the sample hoses was 3 meters. Portable Lighthouse H100 active-air samplers were used for microbial air sampling, according to the slit principle. For 10 min, 100 dm³/min was sampled. Airborne bacteria-carrying particles were trapped via impaction on Tryptose Soy Agar cultivation plates. The plates were incubated aerobically for 2 × 24 h at 30–35°C. Directly after the incubation period, the hospital laboratory determined and reported the type of microorganism. The level of CFUs was assessed by means of the Swedish standard SIS—TS39:2015 (SIS-TS 39(E):2015, 2015). In contrary to other international standards (DIN 1946-4: 2018-09, 2018; Schweizerischer Verein von Gebäudetechnik-Ingenieuren, 2015), the focus in this standard (SIS-TS 39(E):2015, 2015) is on biological contamination and the use of microbiological methods for the assessment.

Figure 2.

Photos of sample extraction hoses at the wound site (a), lighthouse 3016 handheld particle counters and portable lighthouse H100 active-air samplers during measurements at instrument table (b), and extraction point (c).

Particle Count Measurements

The quantity of dust particles was measured at three positions in the OR. The quantity of dust particles was measured by the surgical staff at the location (<5 cm) of the incision, at the furthest away positioned instrument table from the surgical site and in the periphery close to an air extraction point (see Figure 2). For the particle measurements, Lighthouse 3016 handheld particle-counters with a flow rate of 2.83 l/min (0.1 ft³/min) were used. Particles with a size of ≥0.5 μm were measured. The ISO level of particles was assessed by means of the ISO 14644-1(ISO, 2015) standard, at-rest situation. At-rest is the condition where the OR or clean zone is complete with equipment installed and operating in a manner agreed upon, but with no personnel present (ISO, 2015).

During all measurements, the number of staff present, door openings, activity level, and extra ordinary occasions were recorded.

Results

The number of CFU/m³ and particles during the surgeries was on average at wound level ≤1 CFU/m³ resp. 852,679 particles, at instrument table ≤1 CFU/m³ resp. 3,797 particles and in the periphery ≤8 CFU/m³, resp. 4,355 particles. The level of CFUs measured at the incision and instrument table was on average 0.5 resp. 0.7 CFU/m³. This is below the defined ≤10 CFU/m³ for ultra-clean surgery (SIS-TS 39(E):2015, 2015), see Table 1 for number of CFU/m³, type of microorganism, and quantity of dust particles measured.

Table 1.

Descriptives operating room. Number (CFU/m³) and type of microorganism and quantity of dust particles measured. All surgeries were performed in the same OR equipped with an UDAF and in total 71 air changes per hour.

		Quantity particles, CFUs and measurement location
		Wound			Instrument table			Periphery
Type of surgery [duration]	Measurement cycle [10 min]	Mean quantity particles [0.5μm]	Mean level of CFU [CFU/m³]	Type of microorganism	Mean quantity particles [0.5μm]	Mean level of CFU [CFU/m³]	Type of microorganism	Mean level of CFU [CFU/m³]	Mean level of CFU [CFU/m³]	Type of microorganism	Remarks
Distal humeral fracture [105 min]	1	74,193	0	Not determined	2954	0	Not determined	1477	3	Not determined
	2	23,532	1	Not determined	1092	0	Not determined	3853	3	Not determined
	3	1413	0	Not determined	193	0	Not determined	1894	2	Not determined
	4	32	0	Not determined	32	0	Not determined	514	4	Not determined
	5	835	0	Not determined	1798	0	Not determined	449	4	Not determined
	6	12,521	0	Not determined	1027	0	Not determined	0	20	Not determined
	7	1702	2	Not determined	3403	0	Not determined	0	4	Not determined
	8	385	0	Not determined	1926	1	Not determined	0	9	Not determined
	9	88	0	Not determined	417	0	Not determined	0	5	Not determined
	10	32	0	Not determined	4848	0	Not determined	0	11	Not determined
	11	424	1	Not determined	3602	0	Not determined	0	13	Not determined
	12	247	0	Not determined	2825	0	Not determined	1024	6	Not determined
	13	4077	0	Not determined	424	0	Not determined	417	3	Not determined
	14	64	0	Not determined	0	0	Not determined	1926	12	Not determined
Laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair [30 min]	1	7544	0	Not determined	1284	0	Not determined	3114	8	Not determined
Laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair [30 min]	2	2440	0	Not determined	803	2	Not determined	3853	8	Not determined
Open inguinal hernia repair [30 min]	3	69,634	0	Not determined	6967	0	Not determined	2215	17	Not determined
	4	117,341	0	Not determined	0	3	Not determined	161	3	Not determined
	5	67,419	0	Not determined	289	0	Not determined	1124	4	Not determined
Elbow fracture [30 min]	6	81,160	0	Not determined	2761	0	Not determined	4398	4	Not determined
Elbow fracture [30 min]	7	59,907	0	Not determined	64	2	Not determined	3692	6	Not determined
Open inguinal hernia repair [30 min]	1	1,157,230	0	Not determined	264	0	Not determined	5072	15	Not determined
Open inguinal hernia repair [30 min]	2	13,933	0	Not determined	0	0	Not determined	1637	26	Not determined
Laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair [30 min]	3	9471	0	Not determined	0	0	Not determined	1284	3	Not determined
Laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair [30 min]	4	54,545	0	Not determined	0	0	Not determined	1284	8	Not determined
Laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair [30 min]	5	4495	0	Not determined	0	0	Not determined	1637	2	Not determined
Laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair [30 min]	6	4559	0	Not determined	0	0	Not determined	1220	0	Not determined
Open inguinal hernia repair [45 min]	1	10,113	0	Not determined	32	2	Not determined	1188	3	Not determined
	2	8540	0	Not determined	32	4	Not determined	1156	1	Not determined
	3	5169	0	Not determined	10,017	3	Not determined	15,603	4	Not determined
Open inguinal hernia repair [30 min]	4	1,414,930	0	Not determined	3660	0	Not determined	2472	9	Not determined
Open inguinal hernia repair [30 min]	5	161	0	Not determined	10,402		Not determined	5554	5	Not determined
Plate osteosynthesis clavicle fracture [30 min]	6	14,961	2	Not determined	0	2	Not determined	771	1	Not determined	C-arm used during surgical procedure
Plate osteosynthesis clavicle fracture [30 min]	7	2321	0	Not determined	3114	0	Not determined	11,301	2	Not determined
Laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair [30 min]	1	35,989	0	None	3371	0	None	1059	3	1× Staphylococcus caprae1× Micrococcus luteus1× Staphylococcus epidermidis
	2	11,012	0	None	3307	1	1× Staphylococcus epidermidis	674	23	13× Staphylococcus epidermidis8× Micrococcus luteus2× Bacillus sp
Patellar fracture repair [45 min]	3	325,216	0	None	74,771	0	None	15,121	17	6× Micrococcus luteus6× Staphylococcus epidermidis1× Bacillus sp4× Staphylococcus warneri	C-arm used during surgical procedure
	4	1926	0	None	3307	0	None	0	3	1× Staphylococcus capitis1× Micrococcus luteus1× Staphylococcus epidermidis
	5	8957	0	None	6325	0	None	963	10	5× Micrococcus luteus3× Staphylococcus haemolyticus2× Staphylococcus epidermidis
	6	289,773	0	None	5532	0	None	1830	10	5× Micrococcus luteus5× Staphylococcus haemolyticus
Ankle fracture fixation [45 min]	7	3,177,296	0	None	4225	2	2× Micrococcus luteus	5121	41	1× Bacillus sp16× Micrococcus luteus20× Staphylococcus epidermidis4× Staphylococcus capitis	C-arm used during surgical procedure
Ankle fracture fixation [45 min]	8	78,976	0	None	2538	3	2× Corynebacterium sp1× Micrococcus luteus	21,285	6	4× Micrococcus luteus2× Staphylococcus warneri
Open inguinal hernia repair [90 min]	1	2,613,831	2	1× Micrococcus luteus1× Staphylococcus hominis	128	0	None	83,118	3	Not determined
	2	867	0	None	64	0	None	3018	6	Not determined
Laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair [90 min]	3	12,360	0	None	32	0	None	3178	10	Not determined
	4	35,315	2	1× Micrococcus luteus1× Staphylococcus epidermidis	7159	1	1× Staphylococcus warneri	9663	8	Not determined
Laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair [45 min]	5	1,148,947	0	None	5040	0	None	5458	2	Not determined
	6	61,833	0	None	0	0	None	2921	3	Not determined
	7	55,637	0	None	0	0	None	4697	4	Not determined
Removal of implants of the ankle [10 min]	1	5,648,228	0	None	22,345	0	None	15,057	7	Not determined
Ankle fracture fixation [50 min]	2	4,109,118	0	None	5426	0		1316	0	Not determined
	3	2,278,310	0		6421	8	1× Staphylococcus epidermidis7× Micrococcus luteus	2279	0	Not determined
	4	7,045,822	5	3× Staphylococcus aureus2× Staphylococcus pettenkoferi	18,010	10	1× Paracoccus yeei3× Staphylococcus hominis5× Kocuria rhizophila1× Acinetobacter lwoffii	8861	2	Not determined
Laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair [45 min]	5	25,809,339	0		835	0	None	10,370	2	Not determined
	6	2,689,437	1	1× Paenibacillus urinalis	96	0	None	13,869	5	Not determined
	7	33,388	0		64	0	None	9278	1	Not determined
Removal of lipoma swelling [10 min]	1	318,185	0	None	193	0		11,879	21	1× Staphylococcus epidermidis1× Moraxella osloensis1× Micrococcus luteus
Removal of lipoma swelling [10 min]	2	9760	1	1× Moraxella osloensis	11,012	0	None	5394	19	1× Staphylococcus vitulinus1× Staphylococcus hominis1× Micrococcus luteus1× Moraxella osloensis
Laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair [50 min]	3	8,857,047	0	None	5137	0	None	0	14	1× Staphylococcus epidermidis1× Paracoccus yeei1× Moraxella osloensis1× Corynebacterium simulans1× Micrococcus luteus
	4	110,567	0	None	12,103	0	None	0	17	1× Staphylococcus hominis1× Acinetobacter johnsonii1× Staphylococcus warneri
	5	14,415		None	3981	0	None	0	19	1× Staphylococcus epidermidis1× Staphylococcus aureus1× Staphylococcus hominis1× Micrococcus luteus
	6	1605	0	None	4495	0	None	0	12	1× Staphylococcus hominis1× Moraxella osloensis1× Mirococcus luteus
Laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair [35 min]	7	68,831	0	None	4141,4	0	None	417,4	7	1× Staphylococcus epidermidis1× Micrococcus luteus1× Moraxella osloensis1× Kocuria rhizophila
	8	33,581	1	1× Micrococcus luteus	4173,6	0	None	32,1	8	1× Staphylococcus hominis1× Staphylococcus petrasii1× Micrococcus luteus1× Corynebacterium amycolatum
	9	5522	1	1× Staphylococcus hominis	2889	0	None	0	9	1× Staphylococcus epidermidis1× Micrococcus luteus1× Moraxella osloensis
Ankle fracture fixation [10 min]	1	31,526	0	None	24,496	0	None	18,877,3	1	1× Staphylococcus epidermidis
Laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair [60 min]	2	321,813	0	None	257	0	None	995,2	1	1× Micrococcus luteus
	3	7994	0	None	0	0	None	160,5	1	1× Staphylococcus epidermidis
	4	13,323	0	None	0	0	None	545,8	5	1× Moraxella osloensis2× Micrococcus luteus1× Staphylococcus saprophyticus1× P. scleromae
	5	125,913	0	None	0	0	None	642,1	1	1× Staphylococcus warneri
	6	36,631	0	None	482	0	None	385,3	3	2× Corynebacterium propinquum1× Micrococcus luteus
	7	33,196	1	1× Micrococcus luteus	0	0	None	1380,5	0	None
	8	33,099	0		963	0		866,8	0	None
Laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair [30 min]	9	16,598	0	None	0	0	None	577,9	0	None
Clavicle plate removal/fracture [20 min]	1	0	3	1× Bacillus simplex1× Micrococcus luteus31× grams of positive rods not determinable	0	1	1× Micrococcus luteus	64,2	8	3× Staphylococcus epidermidis3× Staphylococcus hominis1× Micrococcus luteus1× grams of positive rods not determinable
Clavicle plate removal/fracture [20 min]	2	0	2	1× Cellulosimicrobium cellulans1× Paenibacillus sp	0	1	1× Staphylococcus capitis	0	3	2× Staphylococcus hominis1× Micrococcus luteus
Fracture fixation of ankle fracture [30 min]	3	56,680	10	4× Corynebacterium minutissimum3× Staphylococcus epidermidis1× Escherichia coli1× Enterococcus casseliflavus1× Bacillus pumilus	0	2	2× Micrococcus luteus	2439,9	20	3× Staphylococcus epidermidis1× Staphylococcus warneri3× Micrococcus luteus9× Staphylococcus warneri
	4	51,701	0	None	0	0	None	0	20	1× Staphylococcus haemolyticus6× Staphylococcus saprophiticus8× Micrococcus luteus
	5	11,159	3	1× Escherichia coli2× Staphylococcus capitis	0	0	None	0	46	4× Paracoccus yeei26× Staphylococcus warneri4× Micrococcus luteus
Laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair [20 min]	6	29,276	1	3× Micrococcus luteus	0	0	None	n.a.	6	3× Staphylococcus epidermidis3× Micrococcus luteus
	7	181,588	0	None	0	4	2× Staphylococcus hominis2× Micrococcus luteus	n.a.	4	2× Micrococcus luteus1× Staphylococcus epidermidis1× Staphylococcus capitis
Mean		852,679	0,5		3797	0,7		4355	7,9

Discussion

Reducing energy consumption in hospitals has a high priority (Friedericy et al., 2019; Zarzycka et al., 2019). One possibility to save energy is to reduce the ACH in the OR (Lans et al., 2024; Loomans et al., 2020). For new construction projects, the choice is sometimes made to lower OR classifications (Kennisinstituut van de federatie van medisch specialisten, 2022), to lower the ACH, and to modify the existing air handling installation fitted in existing ORs (Lans et al., 2024). The WHO (World Health Organization, 2016) and FMS (Kennisinstituut van de federatie van medisch specialisten, 2022) stated that existing research on OR ventilation systems is flawed and that there is only weak evidence that OR ventilation systems help to reduce the incidence of SSIs (Brandt et al., 2008; Breier et al., 2011; Weinstein & Bonten, 2017). Other studies declare the opposite (Langvatn et al., 2020; Surial et al., 2022; Whyte & Lytsy, 2019) and advise to use a UCV system for infection-prone surgeries (HTM-03-01 Part A, n.d.; NICE guideline, 2020; SIS-TS 39(E):2015, 2015), where artificial implants are used.

This baseline study has been performed to enable a comparison regarding the number of CFU/m³, type of microorganism, and quantity of dust particles in an ultra-clean (HTM-03-01 Part A, n.d.; SIS-TS 39(E):2015, 2015) OR. Since the recent FMS advice to reduce the ACH for most surgeries, it is important to have a benchmark regarding the number and type of microorganisms and particles measured during surgery at the wound site, instrument table, and periphery, measured in an OR Class 1+.

In this study, there was a broad variety of microorganisms cultured at different locations, often there was little correlation between types of organisms found during one operation at different locations or in subsequent uses of the OR. In general, it can be said that an overwhelming majority of the cultured bacteria are not known as primary pathogens, such as Staphylococcus aureus (Bode et al., 2010). The majority of cultured organisms in this study are known as colonizing bacteria of the human skin (Staphylococcus hominis, S. epidermidis, S. capitis) which could pose a risk for low-grade prosthetic infections but were found in this study distant from the operating table to form a risk to the patient. Determination of the type of microorganisms shows a paucity of primary pathogens, with the largest numbers of cultured bacteria members of human colonizers or environmental contaminants that occasionally participate in prosthetic infections, and in this study in an OR equipped with a UDAF, were found distant from the site of the surgery to form a threat in those special cases. Besides the known SSI prevention measures (Seidelman et al., 2023), an ever-increasing air change rate is a concept that is on most occasions already beyond a reasonable expectation dose/response effect as long as the six general strategies supported by randomized trials are followed for prevention of SSIs: avoiding razors for hair removal, decolonization with intranasal antistaphylococcal agents and antistaphylococcal skin antiseptics for high-risk procedures, use of chlorhexidine gluconate and alcohol-based skin preparation, maintaining normothermia to keep the body temperature warmer than 36 °C, perioperative glycemic control, and use of negative pressure wound therapy.

During the measurements, the UCV system did not meet the at-rest ISO class 5 (DIN 1946-4: 2018-09, 2018; Kennisinstituut van de federatie van medisch specialisten, 2022) standards at the measuring locations during surgery. This is consistent with previous studies (Marsault et al., 2021; Scaltriti et al., 2007). Our study showed that the desired ISO5 (DIN 1946-4: 2018-09, 2018; Kennisinstituut van de federatie van medisch specialisten, 2022; NF S 90 351, 2013) classification was exceeded on every measurement location despite the high ACH (Langvatn et al., 2020). The quantity of particles measured during surgery was on average ISO8 at the wound site and ISO6 at the instrument table and in the periphery (ISO, 2015). This is consistent with other studies (Landrin et al., 2005; Stålfelt et al., 2023).

When changing the air change rate in an existing OR or when building a new OR, the selection of the classification of the OR and ACH should depend on the type of the surgical procedure. As well the number of people present, the heat load in the OR, the clothing procedure (Ljungqvist et al., 2015) etc. are important criteria. The impact of reducing the ACH on the measured numbers of CFUs and particles cannot be determined without considering the aforementioned parameters.

This study has several limitations.

First, the impact on SSIs when reducing the air change rate (Lans et al., 2024) in the OR is not determined. To date, most ORs in Dutch hospitals are designed as ultra-clean ORs (FMS Class 1+). Changing from an UCV to a CV air supply system can have an effect on the use of surgical smoke and contaminant removal effectiveness (Romano, Milani, Gustén, et al., 2020). However, reducing the air change rate will decrease the energy consumption of the OR air handling installation (Gormley et al., 2017; Marsault et al., 2021). A study is recommended to evaluate the impact on the number of SSIs and cultured bacteria when reducing the ACH according to the FMS. This study is recommended despite the fact that the outcomes will be influenced by parameters such as number and the behavior of staff present (Humphreys, 2018; Wang et al., 2020), number of door openings (Perez et al., 2018; Roth et al., 2019; Smith et al., 2013), amount of air introduced (Lans et al., 2022), type of surgical clothing (Cao et al., 2021; Ljungqvist et al., 2015), and type of surgical procedures (Friedericy et al., 2024).

Secondly, the number of staff present, door openings, activity level, and extraordinary occasions has influence on the number of CFU during surgery. Although we recorded these, we did not assess the impact of those activities on we did not assess the impact of those activities or occasions on the number of CFUs or the quantity of dust particles (Perez et al., 2018; Roth et al., 2019; Smith et al., 2013; Teter et al., 2017).

Third, in the current study, we only examined one hospital OR location. It is recommended to conduct a similar study in other hospitals and ORs where room geometry (Memarzadeh & Jiang, 2004), the ACH (Langvatn et al., 2020; Lans et al., 2024), and type of UCV system vary (Lans et al., 2022). The merging of all these data will give a more comprehensive picture of whether it is needed to apply high ACH.

In conclusion, the level of CFUs in the ultra-clean surgical area is below the standards defined ultra-clean level for ultra-clean ORs. The quantity of dust particles measured during surgery was higher than the standards defined ISO5 (ISO, 2015) at-rest. Regarding the number of particles (≥0.5μm) during surgery ISO8 (ISO, 2015) levels were reached at the wound site and ISO6 (ISO, 2015) at the instrument table and in the periphery.

Implications for Practice

It is relevant to understand how air quality in the OR affects the patient's risk of developing a SSI and the risk to staff when exposed to surgical smoke and other harmful substances.

The design of the OR air handling installation and selection of the type of UCV system is important. The type of surgery should be considered when selecting the type of air handling and OR air supply system.

When an OR is equipped with an ultra-clean air supply system that is protecting only the surgical site it will leave, the periphery of the OR at risk for contamination.

All environmental parameters should be assessed to determine if a higher or lower ACH will benefit the asepsis of the OR.

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the staff of the Reinier de Graaf hospital group, the Netherlands, for making the operating rooms available for the measurements and determine the type of microorganism.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: J.L.A. Lans is CEO of Medexs BV, a company that supplies and install OR ventilation systems. All other authors report no conflict of interest relevant to this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

J.L.A. Lans

P.R. Goswami

References

Agodi

Auxilia

Barchitta

Cristina

M. L.

D’Alessandro

Mura

Nobile

Pasquarella

Avondo

Bellocchi

Canino

Capozzi

Casarin

Cavasin

Contegiacomo

Deriu

M. G.

Evola

F. R.

Farsetti

Grandi

D'Alessandro

Guareschi

Longhitano

A. M.

Longo

Malatesta

Marenghi

Marras

Maso

Mattaliano

A. R.

Montella

M. T.

Moscato

Navone

Romeo

M. A.

Rossi

Ruffino

Santangelo

Sartini

Sessa

Tardivo

Tranquilli Leali

Torregrossa

M. V.

Vitali

(2015). Operating theatre ventilation systems and microbial air contamination in total joint replacement surgery: Results of the GISIO-ISChIA study. Journal of Hospital Infection, 90(3), 213–219. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhin.2015.02.014

Bode

L. G. M.

Kluytmans

J. A. J. W.

Wertheim

H. F. L.

Bogaers

Vandenbroucke-Grauls

C. M. J. E.

Roosendaal

Troelstra

Box

A. T. A.

Voss

van der Tweel

van Belkum

Verbrugh

H. A.

Vos

M. C.

(2010). Preventing surgical-site infections in nasal carriers of Staphylococcus aureus. New England Journal of Medicine, 362(1), 9–17. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa0808939

Brandt

Hott

Sohr

Daschner

Gastmeier

Rüden

(2008). Operating room ventilation with laminar airflow shows no protective effect on the surgical site infection rate in orthopedic and abdominal surgery. Annals of Surgery, 248(5), 695–700. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0b013e31818b757d

Breier

A.-C.

Brandt

Sohr

Geffers

Gastmeier

(2011). Laminar airflow ceiling size: No impact on infection rates following hip and knee prosthesis. Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology, 32(11), 1097–1102. https://doi.org/10.1086/662182

Cao

Pedersen

Zhang

Drangsholt

Radtke

Langvatn

Stenstad

L.-I.

Hans

Skogås

J. G.

(2021). Can clothing systems and human activities in operating rooms with mixing 1 ventilation systems help achieve 10 CFU/m3 level during orthopaedic surgeries? Journal of Hospital Infection, 120, 110–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhin.2021.11.005

DIN 1946-4: 2018-09. (2018). Ventilation and air conditioning—Part 4: Ventilation in buildings and rooms of health care.

Friedericy

H. J.

Friedericy

A. F.

de Weger

van Dorp

E. L. A.

Traversari

R. A. A. L.

van der Eijk

A. C.

Jansen

F. W.

(2024). Effect of unidirectional airflow ventilation on surgical site infection in cardiac surgery: Environmental impact as a factor in the choice for turbulent mixed air flow. Journal of Hospital Infection, 148, 51–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhin.2024.03.008

Friedericy

H. J.

Weiland

N. H. S.

Van Der Eijk

A. C.

Jansen

F. W.

(2019). Steps for reducing the carbon footprint of the operating room. Nederlands Tijdschrift Voor Geneeskunde, 163(43), D4095.

Gormley

Markel

T. A.

Jones

Greeley

Ostojic

Clarke

J. H.

Abkowitz

Wagner

(2017). Cost-benefit analysis of different air change rates in an operating room environment. American Journal of Infection Control, 45(12), 1318–1323. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajic.2017.07.024

10.

HTM-03-01 Part A. (n.d.). Part A: The concept, design, specification, installation and acceptance testing of healthcare ventilation systems Classification: Official Publications approval reference: PAR38.

11.

Humphreys

(2018). Behaviours and rituals in the operating theatre. Do they really matter? Healthcare Infection Society, 1–27. https://doi.org/10.33325/ipc0006

12.

ISO. (2015). ISO 14644-1:2015 Classification of air cleanliness by particle concentration. Cleanrooms and Associated Controlled Environments, 2(2), 2–5.

13.

Kennisinstituut van de federatie van medisch specialisten. (2022). Luchtbehandeling in operatiekamers en behandelkamers.

14.

Knudsen

R. J.

Knudsen

S. M. N.

Nymark

Anstensrud

Jensen

E. T.

La Mia Malekzadeh

M. J.

Overgaard

(2021). Laminar airflow decreases microbial air contamination compared with turbulent ventilated operating theatres during live total joint arthroplasty: A nationwide survey. Journal of Hospital Infection, 113, 65–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhin.2021.04.019

15.

Landrin

Bissery

Kac

(2005). Monitoring air sampling in operating theatres: Can particle counting replace microbiological sampling? Journal of Hospital Infection, 61(1), 27–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhin.2005.03.002

16.

Langvatn

Schrama

J. C.

Cao

Hallan

Furnes

Lingaas

Walenkamp

Engesæter

L. B.

Dale

(2020). Operating room ventilation and the risk of revision due to infection after total hip arthroplasty: Assessment of validated data in the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register. Journal of Hospital Infection, 105(2), 216–224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhin.2020.04.010

17.

Lans

J. L. A.

Mathijssen

N. M. C.

Bode

van den Dobbelsteen

J. J.

van der Elst

Luscuere

P. G.

(2022). Operating room ventilation systems: Recovery degree, cleanliness recovery rate and air change effectiveness in an ultra-clean area. Journal of Hospital Infection, 122, 115–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhin.2021.12.018

18.

Lans

J. L. A.

Mathijssen

N. M. C.

Bode

van den Dobbelsteen

J. J.

van der Elst

Luscuere

P. G.

(2024). What is the effect of reducing the air change rate on the ventilation effectiveness in ultra-clean operating rooms? Journal of Hospital Infection, 147, 115–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhin.2024.02.007

19.

Lans

J. L. A.

Mathijssen

N. M. C.

Traversari

A. A. L.

Jacobs

I. M.

van den Dobbelsteen

J. J.

van der Elst

Luscuere

P. G.

(2023). Capital and operational expenditures of different operating room air-handling installations with conventional or ultra-clean air supply systems. Journal of Building Engineering, 78, 107714. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2023.107714

20.

Ljungqvist

Reinmüller

Gustén

Nordenadler

(2015). Clothing systems in operating rooms—A comparative study. Journal of the IEST, 58(1), 20–23. https://doi.org/10.17764/1098-4321.58.1.20

21.

Loomans

M. G. L. C.

Ludlage

T. B. J.

van den Oever

Molenaar

P. C. A.

Kort

H. S. M.

Joosten

P. H. J.

(2020). Experimental investigation into cleanroom contamination build-up when applying reduced ventilation and pressure hierarchy conditions as part of demand controlled filtration. Building and Environment, 176, 106861. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2020.106861

22.

Marsault

L. V.

Ravn

Overgaard

Frich

L. H.

Olsen

Anstensrud

Nielsen

Overgaard

(2021). Laminar airflow versus turbulent airflow in simulated total hip arthroplasty: Measurements of colony-forming units, particles, and energy consumption. Journal of Hospital Infection, 115, 117–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhin.2021.06.009

23.

Memarzadeh

Jiang

(2004). Effect of operation room geometry and ventilation system parameter variations on the protection of the surgical site. IAQ Conference.

24.

NF S 90 351. (2013). Health care institutions—Controlled environment areas—Requirements for airborne contamination control.

25.

NICE guideline. (2020). Joint replacement (primary): hip, knee and shoulder. www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng157

26.

Pedersen

Cao

Drangsholt

Stenstad

L. I.

Skogås

J. G.

(2019). Can we meet the requirement for ultra-clean operation room (10CFU/m3) with dilution ventilation? E3S Web of Conferences, 111, 01041. https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/201911101041

27.

Perez

Holloway

Ehrenfeld

Cohen

Cunningham

Miley

G. B.

Hollenbeck

B. L.

(2018). Door openings in the operating room are associated with increased environmental contamination. American Journal of Infection Control, 46(8), 954–956. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajic.2018.03.005

28.

Romano

Milani

Gustén

Joppolo

C. M.

(2020). Surgical smoke and airborne microbial contamination in operating theatres: Influence of ventilation and surgical phases. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(15), 5395. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17155395

29.

Romano

Milani

Ricci

Joppolo

C. M.

(2020). Operating theatre ventilation systems and their performance in contamination control: “at rest” and “in operation” particle and microbial measurements made in an Italian large and multi-year inspection campaign. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(19), 7275. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17197275

30.

Roth

J. A.

Juchler

Dangel

Eckstein

F. S.

Battegay

Widmer

A. F.

(2019). Frequent door openings during cardiac surgery are associated with increased risk for surgical site infection: A prospective observational study. Clinical Infectious Diseases, 69(2), 290–294. https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciy879

31.

Scaltriti

Cencetti

Rovesti

Marchesi

Bargellini

Borella

(2007). Risk factors for particulate and microbial contamination of air in operating theatres. Journal of Hospital Infection, 66(4), 320–326. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhin.2007.05.019

32.

Schweizerischer Verein von Gebäudetechnik-Ingenieuren. (2015). SWKI VA105-01 Raumlufttechnische Anlagen in medizinisch genutzten Räumen SICC VA105-01. www.swki.ch

33.

Seidelman

J. L.

Mantyh

C. R.

Anderson

D. J.

(2023). Surgical site infection prevention: A review. JAMA, 329(3), 244. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2022.24075

34.

SIS-TS 39(E):2015. (2015). Swedish Standards Institute—Microbiological cleanliness in the operating room—Preventing airborne contamination—Guidance and fundamental requirements. www.sis.se

35.

Smith

E. B.

Raphael

I. J.

Maltenfort

M. G.

Honsawek

Dolan

Younkins

E. A.

(2013). The effect of laminar air flow and door openings on operating room contamination. Journal of Arthroplasty, 28(9), 1482–1485. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2013.06.012

36.

Stålfelt

Svensson Malchau

Björn

Mohaddes

Erichsen Andersson

(2023). Can particle counting replace conventional surveillance for airborne bacterial contamination assessments? A systematic review using narrative synthesis. In American Journal of Infection Control, 51(12), 1417–1424. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajic.2023.05.004

37.

Surial

Atkinson

Külpmann

Brunner

Hildebrand

Sicre

Troillet

Widmer

Rolli

Maag

Marschall

(2022). Better operating room ventilation as determined by a novel ventilation Index is associated with lower rates of surgical site infections. Annals of Surgery, 276(5), e353–e360. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000005670

38.

Tammelin

Kylmänen

Samuelsson

(2023). Comparison of number of airborne bacteria in operating rooms with turbulent mixing ventilation and unidirectional airflow when using reusable scrub suits and single-use scrub suits. Journal of Hospital Infection, 135, 119–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhin.2023.03.012

39.

Teter

Guajardo

Al-Rammah

Rosson

Perl

T. M.

Manahan

(2017). Assessment of operating room airflow using air particle counts and direct observation of door openings. American Journal of Infection Control, 45(5), 477–482. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajic.2016.12.018

40.

Wang

Sadeghian

Sadrizadeh

(2020). Effect of staff number on the Bacteria contamination in operating rooms with temperature controlled airflow ventilation and turbulent mixing ventilation. Proceedings of Building Simulation 2019: 16th Conference of IBPSA, 16, 747–753. https://doi.org/10.26868/25222708.2019.210960

41.

Weinstein

R. A.

Bonten

M. J. M.

(2017). Laminar airflow and surgical site infections: The evidence is blowing in the wind. The Lancet Infectious Diseases, 17(5), 472–473. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1473-3099(17)30060-9

42.

Whyte

Lytsy

(2019). Ultraclean air systems and the claim that laminar airflow systems fail to prevent deep infections after total joint arthroplasty. Journal of Hospital Infection, 103(1), e9–e15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhin.2019.04.021

43.

World Health Organization. (2016). Global guidelines for the prevention of surgical site infection (WHO, Ed.; pp. 158–162).

44.

Zarzycka

Haskoningdhv

Maassen

Zeiler

(2019). Energy saving opportunities in operating theatres: a literature study. REHVA Journal, 2, 25–31.