Study on the effectiveness of a novel dual channel laparoscopic smoke evacuation device

doi:10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-3253.2025.06.015

Abstract

Abstract:

Objective

A laparoscopic novel dual-channel smoke evacuation device was designed, and its smoke exhaust effect was verified.

Methods

In the in vitro transparent laparoscopic simulation box, the chicken fat was grasped by ultrasonic knife and bipolar electrocoagulation forceps, and the novel dual-channel smoke evacuation device installed group (study group) and the traditional smoke extraction device installed group (control group) were compared. The smoke particle count in the simulated box was measured. The laparoscopic lens was used to observe the experimental operation at different distance, and the number of times the lens contaminated during 100 operations was recorded.

Results

In the smoke evacuated experiment, the number of particles measured in the study group about 0.3 μm particles [(1 329 247 ± 159 800) vs (24 123 431 ± 9 366 698), P=0.006], 0.5 μm particles [(339 856 ± 96 857) vs (3 037 262 ± 1 038 992), P<0.001], and 1.0 μm particles [(60 542 ± 38 500) vs (779 007 ± 96 318), P<0.001], 2.5 μm particles [(4 938 ± 1 938)vs (89 846 ± 20 408), P<0.001], 5.0 μm particles [(1 365 ± 414) vs (42 649 ± 8 489), P<0.001], 10.0 μm particles [(36 ± 17) vs (2 797 ± 1 094), P<0.001] were significantly lower than those in the control group. In the experiment of lens anti-pollution effect, the number of contaminated operations observed by the study group at middle distance (5 cm) (13/100 vs 27/100 times, P=0.013) and the number of contaminated operations observed by the lens at close distance (3 cm) (18/100 vs 40/100 times, P<0.001) were significantly fewer than those in the control group.

Conclusion

The novel dual-channel smoke evacuation device can effectively evacuate smoke and maintain a clear surgical field of view during laparoscopic surgery.

Key words: Laparoscopy, Smoke extraction device, Surgical smoke, Dual-channel, Equipment design, Occupational exposure

Chao Zhi, Bin Cao, Liang Xiao, Jia Wu, Wenjun Xue, Chao Zhang, Fei Guo, Bo Yang. Study on the effectiveness of a novel dual channel laparoscopic smoke evacuation device[J]. Chinese Journal of Endourology(Electronic Edition), 2025, 19(06): 778-783.

/ / Recommend

Add to citation manager EndNote|Ris|BibTeX

URL: https://zhqjmnmwkzz.cma-cmc.com.cn/EN/10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-3253.2025.06.015

https://zhqjmnmwkzz.cma-cmc.com.cn/EN/Y2025/V19/I06/778

Figures/Tables 4

References 25

[1]	Soysal GE, Ilce A, Lakestani S, et al. Comparison of the effects of surgical smoke on the air quality and on the physical symptoms of operating room staff[J]. Biol Res Nurs, 2023, 25(3): 444-453. DOI: 10.1177/10998004221151157.
[2]	Bree K, Barnhill S, Rundell W. The dangers of electrosurgical smoke to operating room personnel: a review[J]. Workplace Health Saf, 2017, 65(11): 517-526. DOI: 10.1177/2165079917691063.
[3]	Chowdhury KK, Meftahuzzaman SM, Rickta D, et al. Electrosurgical smoke: a real concern[J]. Mymensingh Med J, 2011, 20(3): 507-512.
[4]	黄倩, Wong WS Felix, 等. 腹腔镜下止血设备新进展[J]. 中国微创外科杂志, 2011, 11(5): 385-390. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1009-6604.2011.05.001.
[5]	薛静, 姜云. 手术烟雾的危害及防护探讨[J]. 南通大学学报(医学版), 2012, 32(6): 534-535. DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1674-7887.2012.06.032.
[6]	Okoshi K, Hida K, Kinoshita K, et al. Measurement of particulate matter 2.5 in surgical smoke and its health hazards[J]. Surg Today, 2022, 52(9): 1341-1347. DOI: 10.1007/s00595-022-02473-z.
[7]	Wang HK, Mo F, Ma CG, et al. Evaluation of fine particles in surgical smoke from an urologist’s operating room by time and by distance[J]. Int Urol Nephrol, 2015, 47(10): 1671-1678. DOI: 10.1007/s11255-015-1080-3.
[8]	Robertson D, Sterke F, van Weteringen W, et al. Escape of surgical smoke particles, comparing conventional and valveless trocar systems[J]. Surg Endosc, 2023, 37(11): 8552-8561. DOI: 10.1007/s00464-023-10444-9.
[9]	徐翔, 汲广岩, 谢强, 等. 腹腔镜辅助经肛全直肠系膜切除术中恒压气腹设备与传统气腹设备效果的对比分析[J]. 中华胃肠外科杂志, 2020, 23(6): 613-615. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.cn.441530-20190605-00235.
[10]	Lathers S, Krishnamoorthy M, Vasdev N, et al. Distribution of surgical smoke particles within a simulated laparoscopic cavity utilizing an AirSeal^® system[J]. J Med Eng Technol, 2023, 47(1): 12-28. DOI: 10.1080/03091902.2022.2096134.
[11]	Hsu FL, Ho TW, Chang C, et al. Chemical composition of smoke produced by open versus laparoscopic surgery for cholecystectomy[J]. HPB (Oxford), 2022, 24(8): 1335-1340. DOI: 10.1016/j.hpb.2022.02.002.
[12]	Li C, Geng M, Li S, et al. Knowledge mapping of surgical smoke from 2003 to 2022: a bibliometric analysis[J]. Surg Endosc, 2024, 38(3): 1465-1483. DOI: 10.1007/s00464-023-10641-6.
[13]	Kwak HD, Kim SH, Seo YS, et al. Detecting hepatitis B virus in surgical smoke emitted during laparoscopic surgery[J]. Occup Environ Med, 2016, 73(12): 857-863. DOI: 10.1136/oemed-2016-103724.
[14]	Fletcher JN, Mew D, DesCôteaux JG. Dissemination of melanoma cells within electrocautery plume[J]. Am J Surg, 1999, 178(1): 57-59. DOI: 10.1016/s0002-9610(99)00109-9.
[15]	Takahashi H, Yamasaki M, Hirota M, et al. Automatic smoke evacuation in laparoscopic surgery: a simplified method for objective evaluation[J]. Surg Endosc, 2013, 27(8): 2980-2987. DOI: 10.1007/s00464-013-2821-y.
[16]	Ha HI, Choi MC, Jung SG, et al. Chemicals in surgical smoke and the efficiency of built-in-filter ports[J]. JSLS, 2019, 23(4): e2019.00037. DOI: 10.4293/JSLS.2019.00037.
[17]	Kumari P, Sainath K, Biswas S, et al. Risk mitigation to healthcare workers against viral and bacterial bioaerosol load in laparoscopic surgical exhaust with a new flow mode in hollow fiber membranes-based filter[J]. J Hazard Mater, 2024, 461: 132517. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2023.132517.
[18]	Feng X, Ding B, Shen Y. The feasibility and efficacy of a novel nano filter in reducing the hazards of surgical smoke exposure during gynecological laparoscopic surgery[J]. Surg Innov, 2023, 30(5): 654-656. DOI: 10.1177/15533506231157169.
[19]	Hardy N, Dalli J, Khan MF, et al. Aerosols, airflow, and airspace contamination during laparoscopy[J]. Br J Surg, 2021, 108(9): 1022-1025. DOI: 10.1093/bjs/znab114.
[20]	康薇, 蔡益民, 周毅峰, 等. 自制精准除烟设备在腹腔镜下低位直肠癌手术中的应用效果研究[J]. 中国现代手术学杂志, 2021, 25(6): 419-422. DOI: 10.16260/j.cnki.1009-2188.2021.06.005.
[21]	申昌连, 毛艳, 陈彩眉. 单孔腹腔镜下密闭式排烟装置的临床应用效果[J]. 中国医药科学, 2021, 11(1): 214-217, 236. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.2095-0616.2021.01.059.
[22]	王文义, 董玲芳, 肖鹏磊, 等. 后腹腔镜下改良肾蒂淋巴管结扎术治疗乳糜尿的临床疗效研究[J]. 现代泌尿生殖肿瘤杂志, 2025, 17(4): 225-229. DOI: 10.3870/j.issn.1674-4624.2025.04.003.
[23]	朱嘉亿, 杨福全. 原发性腹膜后肿瘤诊治进展[J/OL]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(4): 383-389. DOI: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-392X.2025.04.004.
[24]	林帆, 谈琦, 何云锋, 等. 后腹腔镜下经肾周脂肪囊外/内入路肾上腺手术的对比研究[J]. 重庆医科大学学报, 2023, 48(8): 1011-1016. DOI: 10.13406/j.cnki.cyxb.003304.
[25]	邢力永, 刘志飞, 蔡启亮, 等. 辅助穿刺点在后腹腔镜肾下极肿瘤部分切除术中的应用[J]. 现代泌尿生殖肿瘤杂志, 2024, 16(3): 177-178. DOI: 10.3870/j.issn.1674-4624.2024.03.011.

组别	颗粒直径
组别	0.3 μm	0.5 μm	1.0 μm	2.5 μm	5.0 μm	10.0 μm
研究组	1 329 247±159 800	339 856±96 857	60 542±38 500	4 938±1 938	1 365±414	36±17
对照组	24 123 431±9 366 698	3 037 262±1 038 992	779 007±96 318	89 846±20 408	42 649±8 489	2 797±1 094
t值	-5.441	-5.780	-15.488	-9.261	-10.862	-5.640
P值	0.006	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001

组别	颗粒直径
组别	0.3 μm	0.5 μm	1.0 μm	2.5 μm	5.0 μm	10.0 μm
研究组	1 329 247±159 800	339 856±96 857	60 542±38 500	4 938±1 938	1 365±414	36±17
对照组	24 123 431±9 366 698	3 037 262±1 038 992	779 007±96 318	89 846±20 408	42 649±8 489	2 797±1 094
t值	-5.441	-5.780	-15.488	-9.261	-10.862	-5.640
P值	0.006	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001

组别	远距离7 cm	中距离5 cm	近距离3 cm
研究组	7	13	18
对照组	15	27	40
χ²值	3.269	6.125	11.753
P值	0.071	0.013	0.001

组别	远距离7 cm	中距离5 cm	近距离3 cm
研究组	7	13	18
对照组	15	27	40
χ²值	3.269	6.125	11.753
P值	0.071	0.013	0.001

Please choose a citation manager

Content to export