ArticleJournal of anesthesia2026
Efficacy of an aerosol suction device and a drape in reducing surgical smoke exposure to patients and anesthesiologists: a prospective randomized controlled study.
Article in Journal of anesthesia, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeSurgical smoke generated during the use of an electrosurgical unit is a source of pollution, but preventive methods for patients and anesthesiologists have been insufficiently studied.
methodsA total of 120 elective abdominal or breast surgeries were randomly allocated to one of three circumstances: the use of an aerosol suction device (Free-100 M
resultsThe use of the suction device significantly reduced the counts of aerosol at the patient's position (P < 0.001, 95% CI for median difference: - 342,957/L, - 144,576/L), and at the anesthesiologist's position (P < 0.001, 95% CI - 270,894/L, - 111,422/L). The use of the drape also significantly reduced the counts at the patient's position (P < 0.001, 95% CI - 460,837/L, - 247,737/L) and at the anesthesiologist's position (P < 0.001, 95% CI - 344,673/L, - 190,364/L). The drape was significantly more effective than the suction device in reducing the counts (P < 0.001, 95% CI - 97,105/L, - 42,333/L at the patient's position; P < 0.001, 95% CI - 100,495/L, - 29,594/L at the anesthesiologist's position).
conclusionsBoth the aerosol suction device and a drape between the surgical field and the patient's head can reduce the amount of surgical smoke to the patients and anesthesiologists, and the drape would be more effective.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42472406What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.