The debate regarding the safety of smoke evacuation and aerosol diffusion during laparoscopy has resurfaced with the COVID 19 outbreak. We suggest using a simple, readily available low-cost filtration system for immediate implementation. We solicit the responsibility of surgeons to take the necessary precautions to reduce the risk of viral diffusion in the operating room and ensure that our patients continue to benefit from the advantages of laparoscopic surgery.
Background Surgical smoke is a well-recognized hazard in the operating room. At the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, surgical societies quickly published guidelines recommending avoiding laparoscopy or to consider open surgery because of the fear of transmission of SARS-CoV-2 through surgical smoke or aerosol. This narrative review of the literature aimed to determine whether there are any differences in the creation of surgical smoke/aerosol between laparoscopy and laparotomy and if laparoscopy may be safer than laparotomy. Methods A literature search was performed using the Pubmed, Embase and Google scholar search engines, as well as manual search of the major journals with specific COVID-19 sections for ahead-of-print publications. Results Of 1098 identified articles, we critically appraised 50. Surgical smoke created by electrosurgical and ultrasonic devices has the same composition both in laparoscopy and laparotomy. SARS-CoV-2 has never been found in surgical smoke and there is currently no data to support its virulence if ever it could be transmitted through surgical smoke/aerosol. Conclusion If laparoscopy is performed in a closed cavity enabling containment of surgical smoke/aerosol, and proper evacuation of smoke with simple measures is respected, and as long as laparoscopy is not contraindicated, we believe that this surgical approach may be safer for the operating team while the patient has the benefits of minimally invasive surgery. Evidence-based research in this field is needed for definitive determination of safety. Keywords COVID-19 • SARS-CoV-2 • Laparoscopy • Risk • Viral transmission • Safety Surgical smoke may harbor particulates of blood fragments, viable cellular material, bacteria and viruses, as well as toxic gas vapors, all of which can negatively affect surgical staff [1]. Consequently, it was feared that surgical smoke may contain viable SARS-CoV-2 [2-4] and all too quickly, major surgical learned societies published guidelines, statements and recommendations, not only to stop elective surgery but favoring laparotomy over laparoscopy [5-7]. In turn, societies [8] and surgeons [9, 10] dedicated to Minimally Invasive Surgery challenged these statements, underscoring that these risks were largely overestimated and unjustified because of the low quality of evidence [9, 10]. Even if other societies [11] progressively nuanced their initial recommendations and statements, they no longer take any clear stand for or against, only to generate more confusion among surgeons on whether laparotomy or laparoscopy was more appropriate during the pandemic. In this narrative review, we aimed to critically appraise the literature with regard to the quandary of surgical smoke
After a Health Technology Assessment on 3D vision technology completed last year, the aim of one of the consensus meetings 2018 of the EAES was to generate a guideline on the same topic based on best available evidence and expert opinions of EAES Technology Committee members. After a systematic review of the literature by an international group of research fellows, an expert panel with extensive engineering and clinical experience in the use of 3D vision technology discussed statements and recommendations. Twenty-two statements and 2 recommendations were obtained unanimously by the experts and were discussed and voted at the consensus meeting of the EAES in London in May 2018 by the attendees of the meeting. The most important regarding general topics were: a) 3D vision improves outcomes for junior trainees in performing standardized tasks in box trainers, only when 3D systems with HD screen and passive polarized glasses are used and only when properly set up; b) The use of 3D imaging systems improves laparoscopic box trainer task completion time and error rate but this benefit has not been studied in clinical practice. The most important regarding clinical setting were: a) 3D laparoscopy shortens the operating time in all the analysed surgical settings (general surgery, urology and gynaecology); b) The pooling of data from the different settings seems to suggest a lowering in the overall rate of complications after surgical procedures involving suturing in 3D laparoscopy, especially in the gynaecology setting; indeed data are too heterogeneous and weak to sustain any recommendation, other than implications for future research. These produced 2 recommendations: a) 3D laparoscopy might shorten operative times; b) Future research is recommended to demonstrate that 3D vision may lower complications rate in laparoscopy. The majority of the EAES members supported these statements.These consensus proceedings provide additional guidance to surgeons and surgical residents providing help when using 3D vision technology.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.