Lans J L A, Mathijssen N M C, Bode A, van den Dobbelsteen J J, van der Elst M, Luscuere P G
Faculty of Architecture and the Built Environment, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands; Reinier de Graaf Hospital, Delft, The Netherlands.
Reinier Haga Orthopaedic Centre, Zoetermeer, The Netherlands; Reinier de Graaf Hospital, Delft, The Netherlands.
J Hosp Infect. 2022 Apr;122:115-125. doi: 10.1016/j.jhin.2021.12.018. Epub 2021 Dec 30.
Entrainment test methods are described in most European standards and guidelines to determine the protected area for ultra-clean ventilation (UCV) systems. New UCV systems, such as temperature-controlled airflow (TcAF) and controlled dilution ventilation (cDV) systems, claim the whole operating room (OR) to be ultra-clean. However, current test standards were not developed to assess ventilation effectiveness outside the standard protected area.
To assess and compare the ventilation effectiveness of four types of OR ventilation systems in the ultra-clean area using a uniform test grid.
Ventilation effectiveness of four ventilation systems was evaluated for three different ultra-clean (protected) areas: the standard protected area (A); the area outside the standard protected area (B); and a large protected area (AB). Ventilation effectiveness was assessed using recovery degree (RD), cleanliness recovery rate (CRR) and air change effectiveness (ACE).
RD, CRR and ACE were significantly higher for the unidirectional air flow (UDAF) system compared with the other systems in area A. In area B, the UDAF and cDV systems were comparable for RD and CRR, and the UDAF and conventional ventilation (CV) systems were comparable for ACE. In area AB, the UDAF and cDV systems were comparable for CRR and ACE, but significant differences were found in RD.
In area A, the ventilation effectiveness of the UDAF system outperformed other ventilation systems. In area B, the cDV system was best, followed by the UDAF, TcAF and CV systems. In area AB, the UDAF system was best, followed by the cDV, TcAF and CV systems.
大多数欧洲标准和指南中都描述了用于确定超净通风（UCV）系统保护区的夹带测试方法。新型UCV系统，如温控气流（TcAF）和控制稀释通风（cDV）系统，宣称整个手术室（OR）都是超净的。然而，当前的测试标准并非为评估标准保护区之外的通风效果而制定。
使用统一的测试网格评估和比较四种手术室通风系统在超净区域的通风效果。
针对三个不同的超净（保护）区域评估了四种通风系统的通风效果：标准保护区（A）；标准保护区之外的区域（B）；以及一个大的保护区（AB）。使用恢复度（RD）、清洁度恢复率（CRR）和换气效率（ACE）评估通风效果。
在A区域，单向气流（UDAF）系统的RD、CRR和ACE显著高于其他系统。在B区域，UDAF和cDV系统在RD和CRR方面相当，UDAF和传统通风（CV）系统在ACE方面相当。在AB区域，UDAF和cDV系统在CRR和ACE方面相当，但在RD方面存在显著差异。
在A区域，UDAF系统的通风效果优于其他通风系统。在B区域，cDV系统最佳，其次是UDAF、TcAF和CV系统。在AB区域，UDAF系统最佳，其次是cDV、TcAF和CV系统。
