Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T06:21:36.272Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Infection Control Practices to Reduce Airborne Bacteria During Total Knee Replacement: A Hospital Survey in Four States

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 June 2016

Andrew L. Miner ,
Elena Losina ,
Jeffrey N. Katz ,
Anne H. Fossel  and
Richard Piatt
Andrew L. Miner
Affiliation:
Department of Ambulatory Care and Prevention and Channing Laboratory, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School; and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Eastern Massachusetts Prevention Epicenter, Boston, Massachusetts
Elena Losina
Affiliation:
Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts Section of Clinical Sciences, Division of Rheumatology, Immunology and Allergy, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
Jeffrey N. Katz
Affiliation:
Section of Clinical Sciences, Division of Rheumatology, Immunology and Allergy, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
Anne H. Fossel
Affiliation:
Section of Clinical Sciences, Division of Rheumatology, Immunology and Allergy, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
Richard Piatt*
Affiliation:
Department of Ambulatory Care and Prevention and Channing Laboratory, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School; and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Eastern Massachusetts Prevention Epicenter, Boston, Massachusetts
*
133 Brookline Ave., Boston, MA 02215, [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective:

To describe the use of laminar airflow, body exhaust, and ultraviolet lights during total knee replacement (TKR) in four U.S. states.

Design:

Survey of healthcare facilities.

Setting:

Hospitals in Illinois, North Carolina, Ohio, and Tennessee that performed TKR during 2000 as identified by Medicare claims data.

Participants:

Hospitals responding to a mailed questionnaire.

Results:

Two hundred ninety-five (73%) of 405 eligible hospitals that performed 18,374 primary and revision TKR procedures responded to the questionnaire. Among responding hospitals, 30% reported regular use (for > 75% of procedures) of laminar airflow, 42% reported regular use of body exhaust, and 5% reported regular use of ultraviolet lights. Among hospitals providing complete data, 150 (58%) performing 66% of procedures reported regular use of at least one of these techniques. On regression analyses, laminar airflow was used more often by hospitals with a TKR volume greater than 25 procedures per year (odds ratio [OR], 2.0; 95% confidence interval [CI95], 1.1-3.7) and orthopedic residency programs (OR, 2.8; CI95,1.3-6.3), but its use was not significantly related to hospital setting or ownership status.

Conclusions:

Although these clean air practices are not recommended by any U.S. governmental or professional organization, they are used in nearly two-thirds of TKR procedures. Better information about their impact on current practice and more explicit guidelines may aid decisions about the use of these resource-intensive infection control practices.

Type
Orginal Article
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 26 , Issue 12 , December 2005 , pp. 910 - 915
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America 2005

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.Chow, TT, Yang, XY. Ventilation performance in operating theatres against airborne infection: review of research activities and practical guidance. J Hosp Infect 2004;56:85–92.Google Scholar
2.Lidwell, OM, Lowbury, EJ, Whyte, W, Blowers, R, Stanley, SJ, Lowe, D. Effect of ultraclean air in operating rooms on deep sepsis in the joint after total hip or knee replacement: a randomised study. BMJ 1982;285:10–14.Google Scholar
3.Marotte, JH, Lord, GA, Blanchard, JP, et al.Infection rate in total hip arthroplasty as a function of air cleanliness and antibiotic prophylaxis: 10-year experience with 2,384 cementless Lord madreporic prostheses. J Arthroplasty 1987;2:77–82.Google Scholar
4.Fitzgerald, RH Jr. Total hip arthroplasty sepsis: prevention and diagnosis. Orthop Clin North Am 1992;23:259–264.Google Scholar
5.Salvati, EA, Robinson, RP, Zeno, SM, Koslin, BL, Brause, BD, Wilson, PD Jr. Infection rates after 3,175 total hip and total knee replacements performed with and without a horizontal unidirectional filtered airflow system. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1982;64:525–535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6.Turner, RS. Laminar air flow: its original surgical application and long-term results. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1974;56:430–435.Google Scholar
7.Nelson, JP. Five years experience with operating room clean rooms and personnel-isolator systems. Medical Instrumentation 1976;10:277–281.Google Scholar
8.Franco, JA, Baer, H, Enneking, WF. Airborne contamination in orthopedic surgery: evaluation of laminar air flow system and aspiration suit. Clin Orthop 1977;(122):231–243.Google Scholar
9.Ahl, T, Dalen, N, Jorbeck, H, Hobom, J. Air contamination during hip and knee arthroplasties: horizontal laminar flow randomized vs. conventional ventilation. Acta Orthop Scand 1995;66:17–20.Google Scholar
10.Hubble, MJ, Weale, AE, Perez, JV, Bowker, KE, MacGowan, AP, Bannister, GC. Clothing in laminar-flow operating theatres. J Hosp Infect 1996;32:1–7.Google Scholar
11.Ritter, MA, Eitzen, HE, Hart, JB, French, ML. The surgeon's garb. Clin Orthop 1980;(153):204–209.Google Scholar
12.Blomgren, G, Hambraeus, A, Malmborg, AS. The influence of the total body exhaust suit on air and wound contamination in elective hip-operations. J Hosp Infect 1983;4:257–268.Google Scholar
13.Bohn, WW, McKinsey, DS, Dykstra, M, Koppe, S. The effect of a portable HEPA-filtered body exhaust system on airborne microbial contamination in a conventional operating room. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1996;17:419–422.Google Scholar
14.Shaw, JA, Bordner, MA, Hamory, BH. Efficacy of the Steri-Shield filtered exhaust helmet in limiting bacterial counts in the operating room during total joint arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 1996;11:469–473.Google Scholar
15.Friberg, B, Friberg, S, Ostensson, R, Burman, LG. Surgical area contamination—comparable bacterial counts using disposable head and mask and helmet aspirator system, but dramatic increase upon omission of head-gear: an experimental study in horizontal laminar airflow. J Hosp Infect 2001;47:110–115.Google Scholar
16.Der, TJ, Ong, SM, Taub, NA, Taylor, GJ. Body-exhaust suit versus occlusive clothing: a randomised, prospective trial using air and wound bacterial counts. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2003;85:490–494.Google Scholar
17.Ad Hoc Committee of the Committee on Trauma. Postoperative wound infections: the influence of ultraviolet irradiation of the operating room and of various other factors. Ann Surg 1964;160(suppl 2):1–192.Google Scholar
18.Moggio, M, Goldner, JL, McCollum, DE, Beissinger, SF. Wound infections in patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty: ultraviolet light for the control of airborne bacteria. Arch Surg 1979;114:815–823.Google Scholar
19.Goldner, JL, Moggio, M, Beissinger, SF, McCollum, DE. Ultraviolet light for the control of airborne bacteria in the operating room. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1980;353:271–284.Google Scholar
20.Lowell, JD, Kundsin, RB, Schwartz, CM, Pozin, D. Ultraviolet radiation and reduction of deep wound infection following hip and knee arthroplasty. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1980;353:285–293.Google Scholar
21.Carlsson, AS, Nilsson, B, Walder, MH, Osterberg, K. Ultraviolet radiation and air contamination during total hip replacement. J Hosp Infect 1986;7:176–184.Google Scholar
22.Berg, M, Bergman, BR, Hoborn, J. Shortwave ultraviolet radiation in operating rooms. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1989;71:483–485.Google Scholar
23.Sanzen, L, Carlsson, AS, Walder, M. Occlusive clothing and ultraviolet radiation in hip surgery. Acta Orthop Scand 1989;60:664–667.Google Scholar
24.Berg, M, Bergman, BR, Hoborn, J. Ultraviolet radiation compared to an ultra-clean air enclosure: comparison of air bacteria counts in operating rooms. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1991;73:811–815.Google Scholar
25.Taylor, GJ, Bannister, GC, Leeming, JP. Wound disinfection with ultraviolet radiation. J Hosp Infect 1995;30:85–93.Google Scholar
26.Dharan, S, Pittet, D. Environmental controls in operating theatres. J Hosp Infect 2002;51:79–84.Google Scholar
27.Pittet, D, Ducei, G. Infectious risk factors related to operating rooms. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1994;15:456–462.Google Scholar
28.Turpin, IM. Laminar airflow systems. AORNJ 1998;68:366–368.Google Scholar
29.Gosden, PE, MacGowan, AP, Bannister, GC. Importance of air quality and related factors in the prevention of infection in orthopaedic implant surgery. J Hosp Infect 1998;39:173–180.Google Scholar
30.Lew, D, Pittet, D, Waldvogel, E, Infections that complicate the insertion of prosthetic devices. In: Mayhall, CG, ed. Hospital Epidemiology and Infection Control. Galveston, TX: Williams & Wilkins; 1996:731–748.Google Scholar
31.Mangram, AJ, Horan, TC, Pearson, ML, Silver, LC, Jarvis, WR. Guideline for prevention of surgical site infection, 1999. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1999;20:250–278.Google Scholar
32.National Health Service Estates. Health Technical Memorandum 2025: Ventilation in Healthcare Premises. London: HMSO; 1994.Google Scholar
33.Sehulster, L, Chinn, RY. Guidelines for environmental infection control in health-care facilities: recommendations of CDC and the Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee (HICPAC). MMWR Recomm Rep 2003;52(RR-10):1–42.Google ScholarPubMed
34.Humphreys, H, Taylor, EW. Operating theatre ventilation standards and the risk of postoperative infection. J Hosp Infect 2002;50:85–90.Google Scholar
35.Katz, JN, Barrett, J, Mahomed, NN, Baron, JA, Wright, J, Losina, E. Association between hospital and surgeon procedure volume and the outcomes of total knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2004;86-A:1909–1916.Google Scholar
36.American Hospital Association. American Hospital Association Annual Survey of Hospitals, 2000. Chicago: American Hospital Association; 2000.Google Scholar
37.Persson, U, Montgomery, F, Carlsson, A, Lindgren, B, Ahnfeit, L. How far does prophylaxis against infection in total joint replacement offset its cost? BMJ 1988;296:99–102.Google Scholar
38.Berg-Perier, M, Cederblad, A, Persson, U. Ultraviolet radiation and ultra-clean air enclosures in operating rooms: UV-protection, economy, and comfort. J Arthroplasty 1992;7:457–463.Google Scholar
39.McQuarrie, DG, Glover, JL, Olson, MM. Laminar airflow systems: issues surrounding their effectiveness. AORN J 1990;51:1035–1048.Google Scholar
40.National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. Criteria for a Recommended Standard for Occupational Exposure to Ultraviolet Radiation. Washington, DC: DHHS (NIOSH); 1972. Publication No. 73-11009.Google Scholar
41.Hanssen, AD, Osmon, DR, Nelson, CL. Prevention of deep peripros-thetic joint infection. Instr Course Led 1997;46:555–567.Google Scholar
42.Belkin, NL. Laminar airflow and surgical wound infections. AORN J 1998;68:273–275.Google Scholar
43.Purcell, JJ Jr, Krachmer, JH. Hazards of ultraviolet light [letter]. N Engl J Med 1976;294:116.Google Scholar
44.Lidwell, OM. Ultraviolet radiation and the control of airborne contamination in the operating room. J Hosp Infect 1994;28:245–248.Google Scholar