ReviewAnnals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England2021
Theatre ventilation.
Review in Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Surgical smoke: a matter of hygiene, toxicology, and occupational health.GMS hygiene and infection control · 2024Review
- Meta-analysis of postoperative incision infection risk factors in colorectal cancer surgery.Frontiers in surgery · 2024Article
- Minimally Required Personal Protective Equipment during Local Anesthesia Surgery in COVID-19: A Simulation Study.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2023Article
- Prevention of Surgical Site Infections in Neonates and Children: Non-Pharmacological Measures of Prevention.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Thoracic Surgery in the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Novel Approach to Reach Guideline Consensus.Journal of clinical medicine · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionOwing to the COVID-19 pandemic, there has been significant disruption to all surgical specialties. In the UK, units have cancelled elective surgery and a decrease in aerosol generating procedures (AGPs) was favoured. Centres around the world advocate the use of negative pressure environments for AGPs in reducing the spread of infectious airborne particles. We present an overview of operating theatre ventilation systems and the respective evidence with relation to surgical site infection (SSI) and airborne pathogen transmission in light of COVID-19.
methodsA literature search was conducted using the PubMed, Cochrane Library and MEDLINE databases. Search terms included "COVID-19", "theatre ventilation", "laminar", "turbulent" and "negative pressure".
findingsEvidence for laminar flow ventilation in reducing the rate of SSI in orthopaedic surgery is widely documented. There is little evidence to support its use in general surgery. Following previous viral outbreaks, some centres have introduced negative pressure ventilation in an attempt to decrease exposure of airborne pathogens to staff and surrounding areas. This has again been suggested during the COVID-19 pandemic. A limited number of studies show some positive results for the use of negative pressure ventilation systems and reduction in spread of pathogens; however, cost, accessibility and duration of conversion remain an unexplored issue. Overall, there is insufficient evidence to advocate large scale conversion at this time. Nevertheless, it may be useful for each centre to have its own negative pressure room available for AGPs and high risk patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.