A growing body of evidence shows that electrosurgical smoke contains both harmful chemicals as well as live material, including blood particles, bacteria, and viruses.1 Both human immunodeficiency virus and human papillomavirus have been identified in surgical smoke plumes, and bacterial colony growth has been demonstrated from electrosurgical smoke specimens, specifically Staphylococcus, Corynebacterium, and Neisseria species.2-8 Treating 1 g of tissue with electrocoagulation produces chemical by-products equivalent to burning 6 unfiltered cigarettes,9 which is twice the amount of chemical by-products produced by CO2 laser vaporization of the same quantity of tissue. It is a common misconception that electrosurgical smoke is less hazardous than smoke produced by ablative CO2 procedures.9 Many chemicals are present in electrosurgical smoke plumes, including nitriles, benzenes, carbon monoxide, hydrogen cyanide, indoles, phenols, pyridine, pyrrole, styrene, toluene, and xylene.10-12 In animal model studies of rat lungs exposed to surgical smoke, pathologic changes, including interstitial pneumonia, bronchiolitis, and emphysema, have been shown in a dose-dependent manner.1,13-16 Diseases and symptoms linked to inhalation of electrosurgical smoke in humans include anemia, eye irritation, hypoxia, dizziness, nasopharyngeal lesions, vomiting, sneezing, throat irritation, and weakness.1,8,17-19 A study of 153 dermatology residents found that more than 70% reported receiving no formal education on the hazards of electrosurgical smoke.20 Approximately 45% were unaware if they had access to smoke evacuation in rooms where electrosurgery was performed. More than 76% were concerned with the infectious risk of electrosurgical smoke, and more than 71% were concerned with its potential carcinogenic risk.20
We surveyed dermatologists who perform skin surgery as well as staff members with respect to their experiences with electrosurgical smoke and to observe any difference that information on the potential hazards of electrosurgical smoke may have on their attitudes and preferences.
Materials and Methods
We developed a REDCap survey consisting of 17 questions that was approved by the executive committees of the American College of Mohs Surgery and the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery for distribution to their dermatologist memberships. It was emailed to eligible participants using their mailing lists. Although the survey was sent directly to member physicians, it was recommended that they forward the survey to their clinical staff to complete.
After responding to an initial set of survey questions, respondents were informed that there is growing evidence of potential harms of inhalation of surgical smoke. They then were asked the same series of survey questions in light of this information.
Statistical analysis of the survey responses was then completed, and free-text responses as a final question of the survey were assessed for themes. Preintervention responses of staff and clinicians noticing smoke and being bothered by smoke were assessed using proportions and 95% confidence interval (CI) estimates of the proportions. On most questions, respondents could answer on a scale of 1 to 10. Responses of 5 to 10 on noticing smoke and 5 to 10 on being bothered or troubled by the smoke smell were grouped for analyses. A cross-tabulation using the Bhapkar test for marginal homogeneity was used to assess if information presented on potential smoke hazards changed responses. A Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for ordinal responses was used to determine differences between surgeons and staff. A McNemar test was used to determine statistical significance of change in responses to cost. Statistical analysis was performed using SAS version 9.