ArticleInteractive cardiovascular and thoracic surgery2022
Surgical smoke: modern mobile smoke evacuation systems improve occupational safety in the operating theatre.
Article in Interactive cardiovascular and thoracic surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Electrocautery smoke exposure and efficacy of smoke evacuation systems in minimally invasive and open surgery: a prospective randomized study.Scientific reports · 2022Trial
- Development of a new suction instrument to reduce surgical smoke exposure in the operating room.Frontiers in medical technology · 2026Article
- Analysis of the implementation effect of the operating room nursing safety management model based on Heinrich's law.BMC surgery · 2025Article
- The Impact of Electrocautery Smoke on Surgical Staff and the Efficacy of Normal Surgical Masks Versus N95 Masks.Cureus · 2024Review
- Surgical smoke and its components, effects, and mitigation: a contemporary review.Toxicological sciences : an official journal of the Society of Toxicology · 2024Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesEvaluation of smoke capture efficiency of different mobile smoke evacuation devices with respect to volatile organic compounds and their noise emission.
methodsElectrosurgical incisions were performed on fresh porcine liver in an operating room with vertical laminar flow. The generated surgical smoke was analysed with proton-transfer-reaction mass spectrometry with and without the use of a mobile smoke evacuation system consisting of a smoke evacuator machine, a suction hose and a handpiece. The inlet of the mass spectrometer was positioned 40 cm above the specimen. Various devices were compared: a hard plastic funnel, a flexible foam funnel, an on-tip integrated aspirator of an electrosurgical knife and a standard secretion suction (Yankauer). Also, sound levels were measured at a distance of 40 cm from the handpieces' inlet.
resultsThe smoke capture efficiency of the secretion suction was only 53%, while foam funnel, plastic funnel and integrated aspirator were all significantly more effective with a clearance of 95%, 91% and 91%, respectively. The mean sound levels were 68 and 59 A-weighted decibels with the plastic and foam funnel, respectively, 66 A-weighted decibels with the integrated aspirator and 63 A-weighted decibels with the secretion suction.
conclusionsCarcinogenic, mutagenic and reprotoxic volatile organic compounds in surgical smoke can be efficiently reduced by mobile smoke evacuation system, providing improved protection for medical personnel. Devices specifically designed for smoke evacuation are more efficient than standard suction tools. Noise exposure for the surgeon was lowest with the flexible foam funnel and higher with the other handpieces tested.
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.