The risk of eye splash in burn surgery

Risk of bacterial exposure to the endoscopist's face during endoscopy

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Nonuniversal use of facial protection during endoscopy may place endoscopists at risk of exposure to blood and body fluids; however, the frequency of exposure is unknown.

METHODS

A prospective 6-month study of 4 gastroenterologists using a face shield during endoscopy was undertaken. The face shield was swabbed in a standardized fashion before and at the end of the session. Controls included pre- and post-swabs of face shields placed on the (1) endoscopy suite wall, (2) remote patient intake bay wall, and (3) after deliberate contamination with a colonoscope immediately after colonoscopy. The swabs were cultured for 48 hours, and growth was reported as no growth or by number of colony-forming units (CFUs). The groups were compared for +CFU rate and CFU number.

RESULTS

A total of 1100 procedures were performed in 239 endoscopy sessions. The +CFU rate in the pre-endoscopy groups (2%-4.8%, not significant) was significantly lower than the postendoscopist face shield (45.8%, P < .001) and endoscopy suite wall groups (21.4%, P < .001), respectively. Using a cut-off of >15 CFUs as an indicator of definite exposure, the occurrence rate was 5.6 per 100 half days of endoscopy to the endoscopist's face and 3.4 per 100 half days of endoscopy 6 feet away.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first study to quantify the rate of unrecognized exposure to the endoscopist's face to potentially infectious biologic samples during endoscopy (5.6/100 days of endoscopy). This exposure may result in transmission of infectious diseases. As such, we recommend the use of universal facial protection during GI endoscopy.

Risk of ocular blood splatter during oculofacial plastic surgery

PURPOSE

To assess intraoperative blood splatter to the ocular surface and adnexa during oculofacial surgery.

METHODS

Four surgeons and multiple assistants at three separate locations wore a total of 331 protective eye shields during 131 surgeries. Postoperatively, a luminol blood detection system was used to identify blood splatter on the shields. In the event of positive blood splatter, the total number of blood spots was counted. Controls were used to verify the blood detection protocol. A postoperative questionnaire was given to all surgeons and assistants after each case, and they were asked whether intraoperative blood splatter was noticed.

RESULTS

Blood was detected on 61% of eye shields and in a total of 80% of surgical cases. However, only 2% of blood splatters were recognized intraoperatively by the surgical participants. There was no significant difference in the splatter rate between surgeons (64%), assistants (60%), and surgical technicians (58%) (p = 0.69). Shields worn during full-thickness eyelid procedures, direct brow lifting, orbitotomy with bony window, and orbital fracture repairs were more likely to be splattered (p = 0.03), and there was a significant difference between splatter rates among different surgeons (range, 29-90%; p = 0.0004), suggesting that blood splatter rate may be both procedure dependent and surgeon dependent.

CONCLUSIONS

Mucocutaneous and transconjunctival transmission of human immunodeficiency virus and viral hepatitis has been documented. These results suggest that oculofacial plastic surgeons should consider eye protection for patients with known blood-borne diseases and in cases where blood splatter is expected. This precautionary practice is supported by the high incidence (98%) of undetected, intraoperative blood splatter.