Sterile gowns for spinal anaesthesia – environmental cost without clinical gain?

IF 7.5 1区 医学 Q1 ANESTHESIOLOGY Anaesthesia Pub Date : 2024-09-03 DOI:10.1111/anae.16423
Stephen Waite, Charlotte Collison, Ronan Mukherjee
{"title":"Sterile gowns for spinal anaesthesia – environmental cost without clinical gain?","authors":"Stephen Waite,&nbsp;Charlotte Collison,&nbsp;Ronan Mukherjee","doi":"10.1111/anae.16423","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>We read with interest the article by Ledda et al. [<span>1</span>], which highlights a drive to change from single-use to reusable gowns to be more environmentally sustainable. While laudable, we feel that it does not consider wider changes to our practice which could have an impact of greater magnitude.</p><p>Standard practice in many UK centres is to wear a sterile gown for spinal anaesthesia to reduce the incidence of infective complications. This practice is mandated in the 2014 Association of Anaesthetists guidance [<span>2</span>]. However, this practice is not standard globally. In the UK, practice varies for other neuraxial procedures, e.g. many doctors from medical specialities do not wear a sterile gown for lumbar punctures.</p><p>Most anaesthetists are cognisant of the risk of infective complications. However, the incidence of infection following single-shot spinal anaesthesia is very low. The 3rd UK National Audit Project (NAP3) reported only two cases of vertebral canal abscess and one of infective meningitis associated with approximately 325,000 spinal anaesthetics [<span>3</span>]. It noted failings of asepsis and specifically referenced the importance of sterile drapes and use of facemasks, but did not specifically mention sterile gowns. Beyond NAP3 there is very little evidence for the use of sterile gowns. Only a single randomised controlled trial has been identified [<span>4</span>], which investigated gowning on the incidence of catheter tip colonisation in lumbar epidural for labour analgesia. Siddiqui et al. concluded that the use of gowns did not affect catheter colonisation.</p><p>The volume of waste generated using sterile gowns for spinal anaesthesia is significant. In NHS Tayside, a health board with a patient population of 416,090 (2017 Census), we undertook 2877 spinal anaesthetics in 2022. Gowns generated nearly half a metric tonne of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO<sub>2</sub>e) from disposal in clinical waste. These gowns are manufactured in China, and it is challenging to estimate the (likely extensive) additional environmental cost of production and shipping to the UK. As stated, NAP3 estimated that there were approximately 325,000 spinal anaesthetics undertaken in the UK in 2009 [<span>3</span>]. Using a sterile gown for every spinal anaesthetic generates vast amounts of CO<sub>2</sub>e.</p><p>Many anaesthetists seem to be receptive to a change of practice in this area. Tuohey et al. raised similar concerns in 2023 and called for a change in practice in the UK and Australasia [<span>5</span>]. When we surveyed 51 anaesthetists in NHS Tayside, 89.9% of respondents were receptive to changing their practice if supported by a change in guidance. While changing to reusable alternatives may help environmentally and financially, it seems that high quality asepsis for single-shot spinal anaesthesia can still be achieved without the use of a sterile gown, and that individual clinicians should be encouraged to choose what best suits their practice. National guidance mandating this practice, including that of the Association of Anaesthetists, is a barrier to change and to any future research into this area.</p>","PeriodicalId":7742,"journal":{"name":"Anaesthesia","volume":"79 12","pages":"1381"},"PeriodicalIF":7.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/anae.16423","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Anaesthesia","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/anae.16423","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

We read with interest the article by Ledda et al. [1], which highlights a drive to change from single-use to reusable gowns to be more environmentally sustainable. While laudable, we feel that it does not consider wider changes to our practice which could have an impact of greater magnitude.

Standard practice in many UK centres is to wear a sterile gown for spinal anaesthesia to reduce the incidence of infective complications. This practice is mandated in the 2014 Association of Anaesthetists guidance [2]. However, this practice is not standard globally. In the UK, practice varies for other neuraxial procedures, e.g. many doctors from medical specialities do not wear a sterile gown for lumbar punctures.

Most anaesthetists are cognisant of the risk of infective complications. However, the incidence of infection following single-shot spinal anaesthesia is very low. The 3rd UK National Audit Project (NAP3) reported only two cases of vertebral canal abscess and one of infective meningitis associated with approximately 325,000 spinal anaesthetics [3]. It noted failings of asepsis and specifically referenced the importance of sterile drapes and use of facemasks, but did not specifically mention sterile gowns. Beyond NAP3 there is very little evidence for the use of sterile gowns. Only a single randomised controlled trial has been identified [4], which investigated gowning on the incidence of catheter tip colonisation in lumbar epidural for labour analgesia. Siddiqui et al. concluded that the use of gowns did not affect catheter colonisation.

The volume of waste generated using sterile gowns for spinal anaesthesia is significant. In NHS Tayside, a health board with a patient population of 416,090 (2017 Census), we undertook 2877 spinal anaesthetics in 2022. Gowns generated nearly half a metric tonne of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) from disposal in clinical waste. These gowns are manufactured in China, and it is challenging to estimate the (likely extensive) additional environmental cost of production and shipping to the UK. As stated, NAP3 estimated that there were approximately 325,000 spinal anaesthetics undertaken in the UK in 2009 [3]. Using a sterile gown for every spinal anaesthetic generates vast amounts of CO2e.

Many anaesthetists seem to be receptive to a change of practice in this area. Tuohey et al. raised similar concerns in 2023 and called for a change in practice in the UK and Australasia [5]. When we surveyed 51 anaesthetists in NHS Tayside, 89.9% of respondents were receptive to changing their practice if supported by a change in guidance. While changing to reusable alternatives may help environmentally and financially, it seems that high quality asepsis for single-shot spinal anaesthesia can still be achieved without the use of a sterile gown, and that individual clinicians should be encouraged to choose what best suits their practice. National guidance mandating this practice, including that of the Association of Anaesthetists, is a barrier to change and to any future research into this area.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
用于脊髓麻醉的无菌袍--环境成本高昂却无临床收益?
我们饶有兴趣地阅读了 Ledda 等人的文章[1],其中强调了将一次性手术衣改为可重复使用手术衣以实现环境可持续发展的动力。英国许多中心的标准做法是穿无菌手术衣进行脊髓麻醉,以降低感染性并发症的发生率。2014 年麻醉师协会指南规定了这一做法[2]。然而,这一做法并非全球标准。在英国,其他神经轴手术的做法也不尽相同,例如,许多医学专业的医生在腰椎穿刺时并不穿无菌袍。然而,单次脊髓穿刺麻醉后的感染发生率非常低。第三届英国国家审计项目(NAP3)仅报告了两例椎管脓肿和一例感染性脑膜炎,与大约 325,000 例脊髓麻醉相关[3]。该项目指出了无菌操作的失误,并特别提到了无菌帘布和使用面罩的重要性,但并未特别提及无菌袍。除 NAP3 外,使用无菌袍的证据很少。仅有一项随机对照试验[4]调查了腰硬膜外分娩镇痛时穿无菌衣对导管尖端定植发生率的影响。Siddiqui 等人得出结论,使用手术衣不会影响导管的定植。英国国家医疗服务系统泰赛德卫生委员会的患者人数为 416,090 人(2017 年人口普查),2022 年我们进行了 2877 例脊柱麻醉。手术衣在临床废物中的处置产生了近半公吨二氧化碳当量(CO2e)。这些手术衣是在中国生产的,因此很难估算生产和运往英国的额外环境成本(可能很高)。如前所述,据 NAP3 估计,2009 年英国约有 325,000 例脊柱麻醉[3]。每次脊柱麻醉时使用无菌袍都会产生大量的 CO2e。Tuohey 等人在 2023 年提出了类似的担忧,并呼吁英国和澳大拉西亚改变做法[5]。我们对 NHS 泰赛德地区的 51 名麻醉师进行了调查,89.9% 的受访者表示,如果有指南的支持,他们愿意改变自己的做法。虽然改用可重复使用的替代品可能会对环境和经济有所帮助,但似乎在不使用无菌袍的情况下仍可实现单次脊髓麻醉的高质量无菌操作,因此应鼓励临床医师选择最适合自己的操作方式。包括麻醉师协会在内的国家指南强制规定了这种做法,这阻碍了变革,也阻碍了今后在这一领域的任何研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Anaesthesia
Anaesthesia 医学-麻醉学
CiteScore
21.20
自引率
9.30%
发文量
300
审稿时长
6 months
期刊介绍: The official journal of the Association of Anaesthetists is Anaesthesia. It is a comprehensive international publication that covers a wide range of topics. The journal focuses on general and regional anaesthesia, as well as intensive care and pain therapy. It includes original articles that have undergone peer review, covering all aspects of these fields, including research on equipment.
期刊最新文献
Breaking barriers: achieving equitable access to postoperative critical care Postoperative analgesic effectiveness of ultrasound-guided bilateral erector spinae plane block ‘Flextension’: a new term to describe optimal head and neck positioning for airway management Safety and efficacy of remimazolam tosilate for general anaesthesia in paediatric patients undergoing elective surgery: a multicentre, randomised, single-blind, controlled trial Evaluating tracheal intubation ergonomics: practitioner experience and laryngoscope type
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1