Temperature-controlled airflow ventilation in operating rooms compared with laminar airflow and turbulent mixed airflow

Aim: To evaluate three types of ventilation systems for operating rooms with respect to air cleanliness [in colony-forming units (cfu/m(3))], energy consumption and comfort of working environment (noise and draught) as reported by surgical team members. Methods: Two commonly used ventilation systems, vertical laminar airflow (LAF) and turbulent mixed airflow (TMA), were compared with a newly developed ventilation technique, temperature-controlled airflow (T(c)AF). The cfu concentrations were measured at three locations in an operating room during 45 orthopaedic procedures: close to the wound (<40 cm), at the instrument table and peripherally in the room. The operating team evaluated the comfort of the working environment by answering a questionnaire. Findings: LAF and T(c)AF, but not TMA, resulted in less than 10 cfu/m(3) at all measurement locations in the room during surgery. Median values of cfu/m(3) close to the wound (250 samples) were 0 for LAF, 1 for T(c)AF and 10 for TMA. Peripherally in the room, the cfu concentrations were lowest for T(c)AF. The cfu concentrations did not scale proportionally with airflow rates. Compared with LAF, the power consumption of T(c)AF was 28% lower and there was significantly less disturbance from noise and draught. Conclusion: T(c)AF and LAF remove bacteria more efficiently from the air than TMA, especially close to the wound and at the instrument table. Like LAF, the new T(c)AF ventilation system maintained very low levels of cfu in the air, but T(c)AF used substantially less energy and provided a more comfortable working environment than LAF. This enables energy savings with preserved air quality. (C) 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of The Healthcare Infection Society.