Physical principles adapted to clinical practice for a theoretical smoke evacuation device in laparoscopic surgery
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.31349/RevMexFis.71.051101Keywords:
Smoke suction; laparoscopy; theoretical device; physical principles; health protective measuresAbstract
Suboptimal visualization of the surgical field due to smoke generated in any laparoscopic technique, along with the impact on healthcare workers exposed to its toxic particles, has prompted the marketing of various suctioning devices. A limited information on physical basis of these systems has encouraged us to develop a theoretical model that enables a basic experimental recreation of smoke evacuation in pneumoperitoneum. The cooling effect of the abdominal cavity due to the circulation of insufflated gas and variations in its composition resulting from the operative use of electrocoagulation are the primary factors that lead to the collapse of a circuit designed under laminar flow conditions when an increase in suction flow rate is required to preserve surgical vision. The pressure difference generated in the circuit by tripling its flow induces a change in flow regime, preventing collapse without the need for excessive gas renewal. An analysis of the cross-sectional radius, tube wall composition and absolute roughness of endoluminal surface are conducted to assess performance of our model. Behavior of fluids in different pathophysiological situations is studied by Science undergraduates, but instructional simulations in the laboratory often fail to transfer this knowledge into the design of practical devices that correlate the statics of an inert material with the variability of a biological system. This theoretical device has been crafted to encourage students interested in the experimental patterns for biomedical applications related to fluid behavior and turnover during minimally invasive procedures involving the peritoneal cavity.
References
I.Alkatout, T. Schollmeyer, N.A. Hawaldar, N. Sharma, and L. Mettler, Principles and safety measures of electrosurgery in laparoscopy, JSLS 16 (2012) 130, https://doi.org/10.4293/108680812X13291597716348
M. Dobrogowski, W. Wesolowski, M. Kucharska, A. Sapota, and L.S. Pomorski, Chemical composition of surgical smoke formed in the abdominal cavity during laparoscopic cholecystectomy - Assessment of the risk to the patient, Int J Occup Med Environ Health 27 (2014) 314, https://doi.org/10.2478/s13382-014-0250-3
S.M. In et al., Experimental study of the potential hazards of surgical smoke from powered instruments, Br J Surg 102 (2015) 1581, https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.9910
A. Mollov, A. Echevarria, S. Herrera, C. Pegenaute, and J. Rodríguez, El humo quirúrgico, riesgo laboral evaluable - revisión sistemática exploratoria de la bibliografía disponible, Rev Asoc Esp Espec Med Trab 31 (2022) 208, http://scielo.isciii.es/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S3020-11602022000200008&Ing=es&nrm=iso
Y. Tomita et al., Mutagenicity of smoke condensates induced by CO2-laser irradiation and electrocauterization, Mutat Res 89 (1981) 145, https://doi.org/10.1016/0165-1218(81)90120-8
D.S. Hill, J.K. O’Neill, R.J. Powell, and D.W. Oliver, Surgical smoke - A health hazard in the operating theatre: a study to quantify exposure and a survey of the use of smoke extractor systems in UK plastic surgery units, J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 65 (2012) 911, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjps.2012.02.012
S. Gao, R.H. Koehler, M. Yermakov, and S.A. Grinshpun, Performance of facepiece respirators and surgical masks smoke: Simulated workplace protection factor study, Ann Occup Hyg 60 (2016) 608, https://doi.org/10.1093/annhyg/mew006
V.J. Casey, C. Martin, P. Curtin, K. Buckley, and L.M. McNamara, Comparison of surgical smoke generated during electrosurgery with aerosolized particulates from ultrasonic and high-speed cutting, Ann Biomed Eng 49 (2021) 560, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10439-020-02587-w
J.L. Fencl, Guideline implementation: Surgical smoke safety, AORN J 105 (2017) 488, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aorn.2017.03.006
E.H. Benaim and I. Jaspers, Surgical smoke and its components, effects, and mitigation: a contemporary review, Toxicol Sci 198 (2024) 157, https://doi.org/10.1093/toxsci/kfae005
V.J. Casey and L.M. McNamara, Instrumental in Surgery: A narrative review on energy-based surgical cutting devices and surgical smoke, Ann Surg 278 (2023) e457, htpps://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000005816
F.J. Pérez-Duarte et al., Ergonomía en cirugía laparoscópica y su importancia en la formación quirúrgica, Cir Esp 90 (2012) 284, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ciresp.2011.04.021
R. Berguer, W.D. Smith, and S. Davis, An ergonomic study of the optimum operating table height for laparoscopic surgery, Surg Endosc 16 (2002) 416, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-001-8190-y
N. Connor, ¿Qué es la aspereza relativa de la tubería? Definición, Thermal Engineering, 2020, https://www.thermal-engineering.org/es/que-es-la-aspereza-relativa-de-la-tuberia-definicion/
M.M. Binda, Humedification during laparoscopic surgery: overview of the clinical benefits of using humidified gas during laparoscopic surgery, Arch Gynecol Obstet 292 (2015) 955, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-015-3717-y
N. Mowbray, J. Ansell, N. Warren, P. Wall, and J. Torkington, Is surgical smoke harmful to theater staff? a systematic review, Surg Endosc 27 (2013) 3100, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-013-2940-5
I. Brüske-Hohlfeld et al., Surgical smoke and ultrafine particles, J Occup Med Toxicol 3 (2008) 31, https://doi.org/10.1186/1745-6673-3-31
Y.Z. Zhou et al., Surgical smoke: a hidden killer in the operating room, Asian J Surg 46 (2023) 3447, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asjsur.2023.03.066
H. Carbajo-Rodríguez, J.L. Aguayo-Albasini, V. Soria-Aledo, and C. García-López, El humo quirúrgico: riesgos y medidas preventivas, Cir Esp 85 (2009) 274, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ciresp.2008.10.004
Informe de prueba interno #RE00139506 rev. A, Bourbon: Informe de declaraciones realizadas por personal de enfermería y cirujanos sobre el sistema de extracción de humo laparoscópico ValleylabTM, (2018)
A.C. Kam, M. O’Brien, and P.C. Kam, Pleural drainage systems, Anaesthesia 48 (1993) 154, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2044.1993.tb06859.x
G. Birath and E.W. Swenson, Resistance to air flow in bronchospirometric catheters, J Thorac Surg 33 (1957) 275, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0096-5588(20) 30546-8
C.F. Colebrook and C.M. White, Experiments with fluid friction in roughened pipes. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A, Mathematical and Physical Sciences 161 (1937) 367, https://doi.org/10.1098/rspa.1937.0150
J. Vega, R. Valenzuela, and E. Ramírez, Manejo de las pleurostomías, Rev Med Clin Condes 29 (2018) 365, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rmclc.2017.07.013
P. Xu, Y. Li, and J. Ren, Meta-analysis and systematic review of influence of different humidified carbon dioxide on intraoperative and postoperative gynaecological laparoscopic surgery, Ann Palliat Med 10 (2021) 7992, https://doi.org/10.21037/apm-21-1517
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 V. J. Ovejero Gómez, V. Ovejero Bermúdez, C. Sainz Fernández

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Authors retain copyright and grant the Revista Mexicana de Física right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.