Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Exposición laboral al óxido nitroso y sevoflurano durante la anestesia en pediatría: evaluación de un dispositivo de extracción de gases anestésicos / Occupational exposure to nitrous oxide and sevoflurane during pediatric anesthesia: evaluation of an anesthetic gas extractor
Sanabria Carretero, P; Rodríguez Pérez, E; Jiménez Mateos, E; Palomero Rodríguez, MA; Goldman Tarlousky, L; Gilsanz Rodríguez, F; García Caballero, J.
Affiliation
  • Sanabria Carretero, P; UAM. Hospital Infantil Universitario “La Paz”. Madrid. España
  • Rodríguez Pérez, E; UAM. Hospital Infantil Universitario “La Paz”. Madrid. España
  • Jiménez Mateos, E; UAM. Hospital Infantil Universitario “La Paz”. Madrid. España
  • Palomero Rodríguez, MA; UAM. Hospital Infantil Universitario “La Paz”. Madrid. España
  • Goldman Tarlousky, L; UAM. Hospital Infantil Universitario “La Paz”. Madrid. España
  • Gilsanz Rodríguez, F; UAM. Hospital Infantil Universitario “La Paz”. Madrid. España
  • García Caballero, J; UAM. Hospital Infantil Universitario “La Paz”. Madrid. España
Rev. esp. anestesiol. reanim ; 53(10): 618-625, dic. 2006. ilus, tab, graf
Article in Es | IBECS | ID: ibc-052076
Responsible library: ES1.1
Localization: ES1.1 - BNCS
RESUMEN
OBJETIVOS: Determinar el grado de exposición laboral alos gases anestésicos en ausencia de extracción de gases y evaluarla efectividad de un sistema extractor, original y diseñadoal efecto, durante la anestesia inhalatoria en pediatría.MÉTODOS: Veinticuatro niños sometidos a adenoamigdalectomía.En grupo ASP se aplicó extracción de gasesanestésicos (n=12) y grupo No ASP no se aplicó (n=12).Se hizo inducción inhalatoria mediante circuito MaplesonC con sevoflurano 8%, N2O 60%, oxígeno 40% y flujode gas 8 l.min-1. El mantenimiento se hizo con sevoflurano2% con el mismo flujo y mezcla anestésica, enventilación espontánea con tubo endotraqueal y circuitoMapleson D. Los circuitos disponen de válvula APL (airwaypressure-limiting) que permite la conexión al extractorde gases anestésicos. Se midieron niveles ambientalesde sevoflurano y N2O en la zona respiratoria del anestesiólogo.Se realizó encuesta a cirujano y enfermera sobresíntomas relacionados con la exposición laboral.RESULTADOS: Durante el periodo anestésico el promediode exposición al N2O y sevoflurano fue en No ASP:423±290 y 12±10,9 ppm respectivamente; disminuyendoun 94% y 91% en ASP: 24,7±26 y 1,1±1 ppm; p<0,001.Se detectó más incidencia de “olor a gas” en NoASP:87% frente ASP:11% (p=0,003), malestar general:62% versus 11% (p=0,05), náuseas: 62% versus 0%(p=0,009) y cefalea: 62% versus 0% (p=0,009).CONCLUSIONES: La extracción de gases disminuyó hastaun 94% el nivel de exposición, consiguiendo nivelesinferiores a los límites recomendados y reduciendo intensamentelos riesgos para la salud de los trabajadores
ABSTRACT
OBJETIVES: To determine the level of occupationalexposure to anesthetic gases in the absence of anextractor during pediatric anesthesia and to assess theefficacy of a purpose-built extraction system.METHODS: The patients were 24 children undergoingtonsillectomy and adenoidectomy. Gases were extractedfrom the room for 1 group and were not extracted forthe other group (n=12 in each group). Induction waswith 8% sevoflurane, 60% nitrous oxide (N2O), 40%oxygen at a flow rate of 8 L·min–1 through a Mapleson Ccircuit. Maintenance was with 2% sevoflurane at thesame flow rate and gas mixture under spontaneousventilation with an endotracheal tube and a Mapleson Dcircuit. The circuits were equipped with an airwaypressure-limiting valve to allow connection to ananesthetic gas extractor. Ambient levels of sevofluraneand N2O were measured in the breathing area aroundthe anesthesiologist. The surgeon and the nurse wereasked about symptoms related to occupational exposure.RESULTS: The mean (SD) exposure to N2O andsevoflurane in the group without an extractor was 423(290) and 12 (10.9) parts per million (ppm), respectively.In the group working with the extractor, exposure was94% and 91% lower: 24.7 (26) and 1.1 (1) ppm (P<.001).A higher incidence of noticing a "smell of gas" wasregistered for the group without an extractor (87% vs11% in the extractor group, P=.003). Higher rates werealso found for general discomfort (62% vs 11%, P=.05),nausea (62% vs 0%, P=.009), and headache (62% vs0%, P=.009) in the absence of the extractor.CONCLUSIONS: Gas extraction decreased the level ofexposure by up to 94%, achieving levels that were belowthe recommended limits and greatly reducing occupationalrisk
Subject(s)
Search on Google
Collection: 06-national / ES Database: IBECS Main subject: Gas Scavengers / Occupational Exposure / Anesthesia, Inhalation / Methyl Ethers / Nitrous Oxide Type of study: Incidence_studies / Prognostic_studies Limits: Child / Humans Language: Es Journal: Rev. esp. anestesiol. reanim Year: 2006 Document type: Article
Search on Google
Collection: 06-national / ES Database: IBECS Main subject: Gas Scavengers / Occupational Exposure / Anesthesia, Inhalation / Methyl Ethers / Nitrous Oxide Type of study: Incidence_studies / Prognostic_studies Limits: Child / Humans Language: Es Journal: Rev. esp. anestesiol. reanim Year: 2006 Document type: Article