Tseng Scott, Sikaria Dhiraj, Siewert Bettina, Brook Olga R
Department of Radiology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, 330 Brookline Avenue, Boston, MA, 02215, USA.
Abdom Radiol (NY). 2025 Feb;50(2):835-838. doi: 10.1007/s00261-024-04525-z. Epub 2024 Aug 30.
Ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (FNA) is a very low-risk procedure. Despite this, there remains great variability in the use of protective equipment. Given the monetary and environmental costs of protective equipment, the difference in infection rates with full versus limited protective equipment was assessed.
A total of 857 consecutive patients were retrospectively reviewed after undergoing thyroid FNAs at the main hospital and outpatient clinic site performed from 12/1/2020 to 11/30/2023. The hospital site operated with full protective equipment (bouffant, sterile gown, sterile gloves, and full body sterile drape), and the outpatient site with limited (sterile gloves, limited sterile paper drape) protective equipment. Two patients were excluded as no procedure was performed. Review for signs of infection within 30 days of procedure was performed using medical records, which was blinded to the extent of protective equipment utilization.
No infections were identified in either group, with 0/629 (0%, 95%CI 0-1%) in the full protective equipment group vs. 0/226 (0%, 95%CI 0-2%) in the limited protective equipment group. There was no statistically significant difference in infection rate between full and limited protective equipment use in thyroid FNA in the included 855 procedures (95%CI 0-1%). Two patients out of 629 (0.3%) in the full protective equipment group developed mild allergic reaction to topical antiseptic. The 226 procedures with limited protective equipment represent a saving of at least 204,530 g of CO2 equivalents, equivalent to driving a car for almost 3000 miles.
Reducing the extent of protective equipment does not adversely affect the infection rate in thyroid FNAs. Given the inherent costs involved in the procurement and waste of protective equipment, reducing protective equipment use is warranted to reduce both the monetary and environmental impacts of waste.
超声引导下细针穿刺抽吸术（FNA）是一种风险极低的操作。尽管如此，防护设备的使用仍存在很大差异。考虑到防护设备的金钱成本和环境成本，评估了全面防护设备与有限防护设备在感染率方面的差异。
对2020年12月1日至2023年11月30日在主医院和门诊进行甲状腺FNA的857例连续患者进行回顾性研究。医院采用全面防护设备（圆帽、无菌手术衣、无菌手套和全身无菌手术巾），门诊采用有限防护设备（无菌手套、有限的无菌纸手术巾）。两名患者因未进行操作而被排除。使用对防护设备使用程度不知情的医疗记录，对操作后30天内的感染迹象进行审查。
两组均未发现感染，全面防护设备组为0/629（0%，95%CI 0 - 1%），有限防护设备组为0/226（0%，95%CI 0 - 2%）。在纳入的855例甲状腺FNA操作中，全面防护设备与有限防护设备的感染率无统计学显著差异（95%CI 0 - 1%）。全面防护设备组的629例患者中有2例（0.3%）对局部防腐剂出现轻度过敏反应。使用有限防护设备的226例操作至少节省了204,530克二氧化碳当量，相当于驾驶汽车行驶近3000英里。
减少防护设备的使用范围不会对甲状腺FNA的感染率产生不利影响。鉴于防护设备采购和浪费所涉及的固有成本，减少防护设备的使用有助于减少浪费的金钱和环境影响。
