Can particle counting replace conventional surveillance for airborne bacterial contamination assessments? A systematic review using narrative synthesis.

BACKGROUND

Bacterial airborne contamination in the operating room during surgery indicates an increased risk for surgical site infection. The conventional surveillance method for bacteria in the air is by air sampling, plating, and counting of colony-forming units (CFU). Particle counting measures particles in the air, typically in sizes of 1-20 µm, and has been suggested as an alternative to CFU measurements. The primary aim was to investigate the correlation between the number of airborne CFU and particles during surgery. The secondary aim was to explore whether different ventilation settings influence the correlation between CFU and particles.

METHODS

The databases Cochrane, Embase, and Medline were searched for relevant publications. Due to the heterogeneity of the data, meta-analysis was not possible and a narrative analysis was performed instead.

RESULTS

The review included 11 studies. Two of the studies (n = 2) reported strong correlation between particles and CFU (R = 0.76 and R = 0.74). The remaining studies observed moderate correlation (n = 3), low correlation (n = 3), or no correlation (n = 3). Based on the primary results from this study, ventilation attribution to distinguish the correlation between particles and CFU had no or little contribution.

CONCLUSIONS

Due to the lack of convincing evidence of correlation and lack of high-quality studies performing measurements in a standardized way, the studies could not provide the necessary evidence that show that particle counting could be used as a substitution for conventional air bacterial assessment. Further studies are warranted to strengthen the conclusion.