ArticlePloS one2026
Development and evaluation of a modular smoke evacuator for surgical smoke control.
Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSurgical smoke generated during energy-based operations is a known hazard containing particulate matter (PM), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and biological debris, with insufficient adoption of commercial smoke evacuators due to cost and complexity.
objectiveThis study aimed to develop a cost-effective, modular and passive smoke evacuator and evaluate its efficacy in reducing PM and VOC levels during simulated laparoscopic procedures.
methodsA prototype smoke evacuator incorporating a distilled water bubbling trap, activated carbon filter, and ULPA filter was tested in a sealed chamber simulating laparoscopic surgery using porcine liver tissue. The system was connected to a laparoscopic port through a three-way valve, allowing manual, on-demand smoke evacuation without continuous suction. Air quality metrics, including PM1.0, PM2.5, PM10, VOC, and CO₂, were measured continuously. Results were compared to baseline and performance benchmarks from commercial smoke evacuation systems. Statistical analysis was performed using paired t-tests.
resultsThe prototype evacuator reduced PM2.5 levels by >99.5% and VOC concentrations by >95% compared to no-evacuation control trials (p < 0.01). CO₂ concentrations returned to baseline following evacuation, indicating minimal disturbance of chamber atmosphere. PM2.5 and VOC levels were restored to near-baseline values.
conclusionThe developed modular passive smoke evacuator offers a promising and cost-effective solution to improve air quality and enhance occupational safety in operating rooms. The model represents an idealized simulation of laparoscopic smoke evacuation; further clinical validation in live surgical environments is warranted.
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.