A methodology to critically appraise and assess the efficiency and efficacy of filters used in smoke evacuation systems is proposed. Currently the methods for evaluation of laser smoke evacuation systems and filtering is fraught with inconsistency, laced with innuendo and extrapolation. A variety of tissues including beef, chicken, pork, mouse and human have been described. Both carbon dioxide and ND:YAG lasers have been used. A wide range of power densities have been applied. Environmental conditions during the studies either have not been described, are unknown or were not considered as impacting the results. Length of time of thermal interaction was extremely variable. As a result, these studies have not offered or established a methodology of design or proposed a standard which would hold up under scientific scrutiny.

The methodology presented uses known concentrations of individual chemical components of laser plume generated by aerosolization. Following precise scientific protocols a smoke/plume evacuation system was challenged. Test parameters evaluated include measurement of air flow, chemical concentration of the challenge analyte, testing of chemical concentration of analyte prior to a subject filter and at the exit point. NIOSH protocols for chemical analysis by spectrophotometry were used. This methodology allows for standardization of the effects of a smoke/plume evacuation system that is scientifically reproducible and exact. The protocol then allows for comparison which is meaningful to establish system efficiency.

1.
Ott
,
D.E.
: “
Standardized Methodology for Evaluation of Laser and Electrocautery Plume Components Captured by Suction Evacuation
,”
ASLMS
,
1992
.
2.
Ott
,
D.E.
, “
Methodology for Evaluation of Formaldehyde in Standard Plume Evacuation Apparatus
,
ASLMS
,
1992
.
3.
Ott
,
D.E.
, “
Methodology for Hydrogen Cyanide Evaluation by Smoke Plume Filter Evacuation
,”
ASLMS
,
1992
.
4.
Kokasa
,
J.
,
Eugene
J.
, “
Chemical Composition of Laser-Tissue Interaction Smoke Plume
.”
J. Laser Applications
1
:
59
63
,
1989
.
5.
Smith
,
J.
et al, “
Evaluation of a Smoke Evacuator Used for Laser Surgery
.”
Lasers in Surgery and Medicine.
,
9
:
276
281
,
1989
.
6.
ECRI
.
Laser Smoke Evacuators, Health Devices
1990
.
7.
Smith
,
J.
et al, “
Factors Affecting Emission Collection by Surgical Smoke Evacuators
.”
Lasers in Surgery and Medicine
,
10
:
224
233
,
1990
.
8.
Baggish
,
M.
, et al, “
The Effects of Laser Smoke on the Lungs of Rats
.”
Am. J. Ob. Gyn.
156
:
1260
1265
,
1987
.
9.
Baggish
,
M.
, et al., “
Protection of the Rat Lung From the Harmful Effects of Laser Smoke
.”
Lasers in Surgery and Medicine.
8
:
248
253
,
1988
.
10.
Walker
,
N.
, et al
Possible Hazards from Irradiation With the Carbon Dioxide Laser
.
Lasers in Surgery and Medicine
6
:
84
86
,
1986
.
11.
Sawchuck
, et al, “
Infectious papillomavirus in the vapor of warts treated by CO2 laser or ESU
.”
J. Am. Acad. Dermatol
21
:
41
49
,
1989
.
12.
Garden
,
J.
et. al, “
Papillomavirus in the Vapor of Carbon Dioxide Laser-Treated Verrucae
.”
JAMA
259
:
1199
1202
,
1988
.
13.
Gall
, “
Analysis of Photoproducts, Free Radicals, and Particulate Debris Generated During in Vivo Argon Myoplasty
.”
Nezhat
,
C.
, et al
, “
Smoke From Laser Surgery: Is There a Health Hazard?
” Lasers in Surgery; and Medicine
7
:
376
382
,
1987
.
14.
Nezhat
,
C.
, et al, “
Smoke From Laser Surgery: Is There a Health Hazard?
Lasers in Surgery; and Medicine
7
:
376
382
,
1987
.
This content is only available via PDF.
You do not currently have access to this content.