Characterization of the PM2.5 concentration in surgical smoke in different tissues during hemihepatectomy and protective measures.
Tan W., Zhu H., Zhang N., Dong D., Wang S., Ren F.
Laboratory Study, published in Environ Toxicol Pharmacol (2019) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.
Evidence from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.
- Level A · Stronger Clinical Evidence
- Level B · Emerging clinical evidence with positive signals
- Level C · Early human research exploring benefits
- Level D · Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studies
- Emerging · Emerging topic under active research
This page is generated from the PubMed record. The Thai description is an automated summary of bibliographic fields and the abstract, not a full translation, and is not medical advice.
- Study type
- Laboratory Study
- Journal
- Environ Toxicol Pharmacol (2019)
- Country
- Netherlands
- Reported sample size
- —
- Source database
- PubMed
- PMID
- 31494514
- DOI
- 10.1016/j.etap.2019.103248
Abstract (original English)
The characteristics of the PM2.5 concentration in surgical smoke produced by operating on different human tissues during hemihepatectomy were explored to provide a reference for protective measures. Our results showed that the highest concentration of PM2.5 produced by the electrosurgical knife was the liver tissue, followed by muscle, adipose, and vascular tissue. When the single-layer disposable medical mask, double-layer disposable medical mask, and surgical particulate respirator were used to cover the sampling port of the detector, the PM2.5 concentration for all tissue types could be reduced by approximately 40%, 55% and 75%, respectively. In the liver, the average concentration of PM2.5 produced by the ultrasonic scalpel was approximately twice that produced by the electrosurgical knife, suggesting that the air pollution around the chief surgeon caused by the ultrasonic scalpel is more serious than that caused by the electrosurgical knife. Much more protective work should be given for the liver-related surgery.
What this study does not prove
- • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.
- • This is preclinical work; animal or laboratory results cannot be applied to humans.
Evidence level
Evidence from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.
How we grade evidenceBrowse all related research
Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.