Meier A, Jost M, Rüegger M, Knutti R, Schlatter C
Arbeitsmedizin und Arbeitshygiene des Bundesamtes für Industrie, Gewerbe und Arbeit (BIGA), Zürich.
Anaesthesist. 1995 Mar;44(3):154-62. doi: 10.1007/s001010050142.
To assess the occupational exposure of the anaesthetist to anaesthetic gases, a total of 1 German and 25 Swiss hospitals were investigated. A Brüel & Kjaer Type 1302 multi-gas monitor was used to measure concentrations of nitrous oxide and halogenated anaesthetic agents in the anaesthetist's breathing zone. Measurements were performed during 114 general anaesthetic, 55 of which were in patients under 11 years of age. In these 55 patients, the influence of various factors on the exposure (time-weighted average concentrations) was estimated by comparing different data groups. The efficiency of the applied scavenging equipment was examined by surveying the exhalation valve with a leak detector (type TIF 5600, TIF Instruments, Miami).
Sessions with patients under 11 years of age revealed much higher anaesthetic gas exposures compared to older patients. The concentrations of nitrous oxide were on average threefold (Fig. 1), those of the halogenated anaesthetics fivefold higher (Fig. 2) for the younger patients. In 11- to 16-year-old patients the exposure level was the same as in adult patients. The measurements showed a reduction of 85% in exposure if an efficient scavenging system (i.e., no waste gas discharge to room air through the exhalation valve) or lower fresh gas flow were used (Fig. 4); 42% of the inspected scavengers were inefficient, and reduced the exposure on average by only 30%. In operating theatres with a ventilation rate of at least ten air changes per h, the measured concentrations of anaesthetic gases in the inhalation zone of the anaesthetists were reduced more than 50% compared to poorly ventilated rooms (Figs. 4 and 5). The use of tracheal intubation or laryngeal mask airway (LMA) anaesthesia resulted in a reduction of 80% in exposure compared to standard face masks if efficient scavenging was used. The exposures during sessions with inefficiently scavenged Bain coaxial systems or unscavenged semi-open delivery systems of the Jackson-Rees type were tenfold higher than with scavenged rebreathing circuit systems (Fig. 6). During anaesthesia with IV or double-mask induction, the average levels of inhalation anaesthetics were reduced by about 80% compared to inhalational induction with standard masks (Fig. 7). The anaesthetist's working technique is a very important factor that strongly influences the concentrations. Poor work practices, like lifting off the face mask with anaesthetic gas flow turned on, increased the exposure of the anaesthetist and other operating room personnel drastically, even if the other conditions (scavenger and room ventilation) were good.
The exposure levels of anaesthetic gases are generally higher during anaesthesia in children up to 10 years of age than in older patients. Nevertheless, the measurements showed that exposure during paediatric anaesthesia can be kept below the recommended limit (8-h TWA in Switzerland) of 100 ppm nitrous oxide and 5 ppm halothane or 10 ppm enflurane or isoflurane. Causes of high exposures were particularly high fresh gas flows often applied without scavenging or together with inefficient scavenging devices and the high part of mask anaesthesia and inhalation induction with a loosely held mask. To achieve an effective reduction of occupational exposure, well-adjusted and maintained scavenging systems and low-leakage work practices are of primary importance. As leakage can never be completely avoided, a ventilation rate of at least ten air changes per h should be maintained in operating rooms and rooms where anaesthesia is induced to keep down concentrations of waste anaesthetic gases. High exposure during mask anaesthesia and inhalation induction can be prevented by further measures. Using a LMA instead of a standard mask reduces the exposure to the same level as endotracheal intubation.
为评估麻醉医生对麻醉气体的职业暴露情况,共对1家德国医院和25家瑞士医院进行了调查。使用Brüel & Kjaer 1302型多气体监测仪测量麻醉医生呼吸区域一氧化二氮和卤化麻醉剂的浓度。在114例全身麻醉过程中进行测量,其中55例患者年龄在11岁以下。在这55例患者中,通过比较不同数据组来评估各种因素对暴露(时间加权平均浓度)的影响。通过用检漏仪(TIF 5600型,TIF仪器公司,迈阿密)检查呼气阀来检测所应用的清除设备的效率。
与年龄较大的患者相比,11岁以下患者的麻醉气体暴露量要高得多。一氧化二氮浓度平均高出三倍(图1),卤化麻醉剂浓度年轻患者高出五倍(图2)。11至16岁患者的暴露水平与成年患者相同。测量结果表明,如果使用高效清除系统(即无废气通过呼气阀排放到室内空气中)或较低的新鲜气体流量,暴露量可降低85%(图4);42%的受检清除器效率低下,平均仅使暴露量降低30%。在通风率至少为每小时十次换气的手术室中,与通风不良的房间相比,麻醉医生吸入区域的麻醉气体测量浓度降低了50%以上(图4和图5)。如果使用高效清除装置,与标准面罩相比,使用气管插管或喉罩气道(LMA)麻醉可使暴露量降低80%。在使用效率低下的Bain同轴系统或未清除的Jackson-Rees型半开放式输送系统的过程中,暴露量比使用清除式再呼吸回路系统高出十倍(图6)。在静脉麻醉或双面罩诱导麻醉期间,与标准面罩吸入诱导相比,吸入麻醉剂的平均水平降低了约80%(图7)。麻醉医生的操作技术是强烈影响浓度的一个非常重要的因素。不良的操作习惯,如在麻醉气体流动时抬起面罩,即使其他条件(清除器和房间通风)良好,也会大幅增加麻醉医生和其他手术室人员的暴露量。
10岁以下儿童麻醉期间麻醉气体的暴露水平通常高于年龄较大的患者。然而,测量结果表明,小儿麻醉期间的暴露量可保持在瑞士推荐限值(8小时时间加权平均值)以下,即一氧化二氮100 ppm、氟烷5 ppm或安氟醚或异氟醚10 ppm。高暴露的原因尤其包括经常在未清除或与低效清除装置一起使用时应用的高新鲜气体流量,以及面罩麻醉和使用面罩握持不紧的吸入诱导的高比例。为有效降低职业暴露,调整良好并维护的清除系统和低泄漏操作习惯至关重要。由于泄漏永远无法完全避免,手术室和诱导麻醉室应保持至少每小时十次换气的通风率,以降低废麻醉气体的浓度。通过进一步措施可预防面罩麻醉和吸入诱导期间的高暴露。使用LMA代替标准面罩可将暴露降低到与气管插管相同的水平。