Abstract
Laminar flow theatres were first introduced in the United Kingdom in the 1960s and 1970s and have become standard in orthopaedic surgery involving implants. A study from 1982 showed a 50% reduction in infections with joint arthroplasties when compared to conventional theatres and laminar flow became standard in the following decades. Recent evidence including a meta-analysis from 2017 questions the effectiveness of these theatre systems. Most of the evidence for Laminar flow use is based on arthroplasty surgery. We aimed to determine the effect of using non-laminar flow theatres on our trauma patients.
A total of 1809 patients who had trauma surgery were identified from 2019 to 2021. 917 patients were operated on in a laminar theatre and 892 in a non-laminar theatre across two operating sites. We identified the surgical site infections as reported through our surveillance program within the first 90 days of infection. Patient co-morbidities were noted through patient records and procedure length was also noted.
Of the 1809 trauma patients identified between the years of 2019 and 2021, 917 patients had operations in a laminar flow theatre and 892 in a non-laminar theatre. Of the 892 operated in non-laminar flow theatres, 543 were operated in the University Hospital of Wales (UHW) and 349 at the University Hospital of Llandough (UHL). An analysis of soft tissue infections and hospital acquired infections post-operatively demonstrated 15/543 and 71/543 respectively for non-laminar UHW infections and 4/349 and 21/349 for non-laminar UHL infections. A look at laminar flow patients showed 25/917 with soft tissue infections and 86/917 hospital acquired infections. There was no difference between laminar and non-laminar flow theatre infection rates showing rates of 12.1% and 12.2% respectively.
In our trauma patients we noticed no significant advantage of using laminar flow theatres when compared to non-laminar flow theatres. This is in keeping with some recently published literature. Laminar flow theatres have been shown to decrease airborne pathogen counts under controlled conditions, but we conclude in the day to day environment of trauma theatres these conditions are either not met or that the theoretical advantage of laminar flow does not translate to a direct advantage of reduction of infections which may be achieved by standard prophylactic antibiotics.
