Volume 29, Issue 4 (Iran South Med J 2026)
Iran South Med J 2026, 29(4): 195-206 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Merajikhah A, Imani B, Khazaei S, Bouraghi H. Biological Consequences of Exposure to Surgical Smoke in Operating Room Person-nel: A Cross‑Sectional Study on Surgical and Anesthesia Teams at Selected Hospi-tals in Hamadan. Iran South Med J 2026; 29 (4) :195-206
URL: http://ismj.bpums.ac.ir/article-1-2642-en.html
URL: http://ismj.bpums.ac.ir/article-1-2642-en.html
1- Department of Operating Room, Sabzevar University of Medical Sciences, Sabzevar, Iran
2- Department of Operating Room, School of Paramedical Sciences, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences, Hama-dan, Iran ,Behzadiman@umsha.ac.ir
3- Social Determinants of Health Research Center, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences, Hamadan, Iran
4- Department of Health Information Technology, School of Paramedical Sciences, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences, Hamadan, Iran
2- Department of Operating Room, School of Paramedical Sciences, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences, Hama-dan, Iran ,
3- Social Determinants of Health Research Center, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences, Hamadan, Iran
4- Department of Health Information Technology, School of Paramedical Sciences, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences, Hamadan, Iran
Abstract: (367 Views)
Background: Surgical smoke generated during surgical procedures contains hazardous biological particles that can pose significant health risks to the operating room personnel.
Materials and Methods: This descriptive-analytical study included 371 personnel from the surgical and anesthesia teams selected using census sampling. Subsequently, data were collected using a researcher-made questionnaire assessing surgical smoke complications, which was developed based on a systematic review. The validity and reliability of the questionnaire were assessed and confirmed by a panel of13 qualified subject-matter experts and professors. Descriptive statistics (mean, standard deviation, frequency, percentage) were used for quantitative and qualitative data, the chi-square test was applied to examine the relationships between quantitative and qualitative variables, and logistic regression was used to investigate the relationships between surgical smoke and demographic information using SPSS software version 26.
Results: No significant relationship was observed between work experience and throat lump, pneumonia, and perception of unpleasant odor while a significant relationship was observed between work experience and other complications (P<0.005). This study found no significant relationship between occupation and sneezing, throat lump, pneumonia, bronchiolitis, emphysema, headache, watery eyes, and vomiting. Additionally, no significant relationship was observed between gender and foul hair odor, watery eyes, laryngitis, sore throat, throat lump, and pneumonia. The surgical team experienced more complications than the anesthesia team. The regression model revealed a direct relationship between surgical smoke complications and work experience, and an inverse relationship with education, type of occupation, and age.
Conclusion: The prevalence of complications increased with increasing work experience, whereas higher education was associated with a reduction in surgical smoke complications. The surgical team experienced more complications than the anesthesia team. Implementation of protective measures such as proper ventilation systems, smoke evacuation, appropriate masks, and staff training is recommended.
Materials and Methods: This descriptive-analytical study included 371 personnel from the surgical and anesthesia teams selected using census sampling. Subsequently, data were collected using a researcher-made questionnaire assessing surgical smoke complications, which was developed based on a systematic review. The validity and reliability of the questionnaire were assessed and confirmed by a panel of13 qualified subject-matter experts and professors. Descriptive statistics (mean, standard deviation, frequency, percentage) were used for quantitative and qualitative data, the chi-square test was applied to examine the relationships between quantitative and qualitative variables, and logistic regression was used to investigate the relationships between surgical smoke and demographic information using SPSS software version 26.
Results: No significant relationship was observed between work experience and throat lump, pneumonia, and perception of unpleasant odor while a significant relationship was observed between work experience and other complications (P<0.005). This study found no significant relationship between occupation and sneezing, throat lump, pneumonia, bronchiolitis, emphysema, headache, watery eyes, and vomiting. Additionally, no significant relationship was observed between gender and foul hair odor, watery eyes, laryngitis, sore throat, throat lump, and pneumonia. The surgical team experienced more complications than the anesthesia team. The regression model revealed a direct relationship between surgical smoke complications and work experience, and an inverse relationship with education, type of occupation, and age.
Conclusion: The prevalence of complications increased with increasing work experience, whereas higher education was associated with a reduction in surgical smoke complications. The surgical team experienced more complications than the anesthesia team. Implementation of protective measures such as proper ventilation systems, smoke evacuation, appropriate masks, and staff training is recommended.
Original: Original |
Subject:
Public Health
Received: 2026/02/15 | Accepted: 2026/08/17 | Published: 2026/09/26
Received: 2026/02/15 | Accepted: 2026/08/17 | Published: 2026/09/26
References
1. Fitzgerald JE, Malik M, Ahmed I. A single -blind controlled study of electrocautery and ultrasonic scalpel smoke plumes in laparoscopic surgery. Surg Endosc 2012; 26(2): 337-342. [DOI]
2. Hill DS, O'Neill JK, Powell RJ, et al. Surgical smoke –a health hazard in the operating theatre: a study to quantify exposure and a survey of the use of smoke extractor systems in UK plastic surgery units. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2012; 65(7): 911-916. [DOI]
3. Ilce A, Yuzden GE, Yavuz van Giersbergen M. The examination of problems experienced by nurses and doctors associated with exposure to surgical smoke and the necessary precautions. J Clin Nurs 2017; 26(11-12): 1555-1561. [DOI]
4. Ulmer BC. Report of OSHA's draft: information for health care workers exposed to laser and electrosurgery smoke. Todays Surg Nurse. 1999; 21(2): 18-19. [Article]
5. Br üske -Hohlfeld I, Preissler G, Jauch KW, et al. Surgical smoke and ultrafine particles. J Occup Med Toxicol 2008; 3: 31. [DOI]
6. Atar Y, Salturk Z, Kumral TL, et al. Effects of smoke generated by electrocautery on the larynx. J Voice 2017; 31(3): 380.e7-380.e9. [DOI]
7. Bigony L. Risks associated with exposure to surgical smoke plume: a review of the literature. AORN J 2007; 86(6): 1013 -1020. [DOI]
8. Mahdood B, Merajikhah A, Mirzaiee M, et al. Virus and viral components transmitted through surgical smoke; a silent danger in operating room: a systematic review. BMC Surg 2024; 24(1): 227. [DOI]
9. Merajikhah A, Beigi -Khoozani A, Soleimani M. Risk of spreading delta coronavirus to operating room personnel after COVID-19 vaccination. Disaster Emerg Med J 2021; 6(4): 206-207. [DOI]
10. Ball K. Compliance with surgical smoke evacuation guidelines: implications for practice. AORN J 2010; 92(2): 142-149. [DOI]
11. Hensman C, Baty D, Willis RG, et al. Chemical composition of smoke produced by high-frequency electrosurgery in a closed gaseous environment. An in vitro study. Surg Endosc 1998; 12(8): 1017-1019. [DOI]
12. Sisler JD, Shaffer J, Soo JC, et al. In vitro toxicological evaluation of surgical smoke from human tissue. J Occup Med Toxicol 2018; 13: 12. [DOI]
13. Merajikhah A, Soleimani M. Bone cement and occupational hazards for healthcare providers and patients: A narrative review. Curr Surg Rep 2024; 12(8): 252-259. [DOI]
14. Von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, et al. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. Bull World Health Organ 2007; 85(11): 867-872. [DOI]
15. Jay Lynn S, Surya Das L, Hallquist MN, et al. Mindfulness, acceptance, and hypnosis: Cognitive and clinical perspectives. Int J Clin Exp Hypn 2006; 54(2): 143-166. [DOI]
16. Lenz ER. Measurement in nursing and health research. New York: Springer publishing company, 2010. [Article]
17. Van Gestel EAF, Linssen ES, Creta M, et al. Assessment of the absorbed dose after exposure to surgical smoke in an operating room. Toxicol Lett 2020; 328: 45-51. [DOI]
18. Ball K, Gilder RE. A Mixed Method Survey on the Impact of Exposure to Surgical Smoke on Perioperative Nurses. Perioper Care Oper Room Manag 2022; 26: 100232. [DOI]
19. Asdornwised U, Pipatkulchai D, Damnin S, et al. Recommended practices for the management of surgical smoke and bio -aerosols for perioperative nurses in Thailand. J Perioper Nurs 2018; 31(1): 33-41. [Article]
20. Swerdlow BN. Surgical smoke and the anesthesia provider. J Anesth 2020; 34(4): 575-584. [DOI]
21. Asghar MS, Zaman BS, Shabbir MU, et al. Surgical smoke; an occupational hazard. J Pak Med Assoc 2020; 70(10): 1807-1810. [DOI]
Send email to the article author
| Rights and Permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
