Search

It is desirable to maintain a low bacterial count in the operating room air to prevent surgical site infection. This can be achieved by ventilation or by all staff in the operating room wearing clothes made from low-permeable material (i.e. clean air suits). We investigated whether there was a difference in protective efficacy between a single-use clothing system made of polypropylene and a reusable clothing system made of a mixed material (cotton/polyester) by testing both in a dispersal chamber and during surgical procedures. Counts of colony-forming units (cfu)/m(3) air were significantly lower when using the single-use clothing system in both settings., (Copyright © 2013 The Healthcare Infection Society. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

There is a paucity of data on the penetration of bacteria through surgical gowns during operations. A simple new method was developed, using Petri dishes filled with horse blood agar that were attached to the outside of the gown material. This was used to assess bacterial penetration through disposable spun-bonded polyester gowns and re-usable woven polyester gowns during normal use. There was a significant difference between the two gown types when tested in the axilla (P = 0.02), the groin (P = 0.02) and the peri-anal region (P < 0.01), with the disposable gowns performing to a higher standard. Re-usable gowns demonstrated variation in penetrability, and for this reason, may be unsuitable for use in orthopaedic implant surgery., (Copyright 2002 The Hospital Infection Society.)

The relationship between surface contamination (cfus/m2/h) with particles carrying aerobic bacteria and corresponding air contamination rates (cfus/m3) was evaluated in operating rooms (OR) equipped with ultra clean vertical or horizontal laminar airflow (LAF). For the evaluation we collected data during strictly standardized sham operations using non-woven disposable or cotton clothing. Air contamination in the wound and instrument areas (Casella slit sampler) was related to the surface contamination rate (settle plates) in the same areas and in addition, on the patient chest. Typically, the mean surface counts were 20-70 cfus/m2/h and the air counts 1-2 cfus/m3 in disposable clothing experiments, whilst the use of cotton clothing resulted in higher counts of 100-200 cfus/m2/h (wound P > 0.05, patient P > 0.05, instruments P < 0.01) and 4 cfus/m3 (P < 0.02-0.001). In the vertical LAF, taking both disposable and cotton clothing operations together, the surface and air contamination rates (surface/air ratio SAR) were highly correlated (P = 0.02-0.004) and the ratio varied between 18:1 and 50:1 with a mean for wound air of 36:1. Using only disposable clothing in the vertical LAF, the number of significant correlations was reduced. With cotton clothing experiments in vertical LAF and in the horizontal LAF using disposable clothing, no significant correlation between surface and air contamination was found. The wide variation of SAR values and the inconsistent relationship between surface and air counts indicates that measurement of OR air contamination represents an unhelpful method for assessment of surgical site contamination in LAF units. We propose instead that colony counts on sedimentation plates is a clinically more relevant indicator of bacterial OR contamination in LAF units. In addition to the current bacteriological standard for ultra clean OR air of (< 10 cfus/m3) we suggest a corresponding standard for the surface contamination rate of < 350 cfus/m2/h.