Home >Newsletters >May 1997
 
ASA NEWSLETTER
 
 
May 1997
Volume 61
Number 5
 

Trace Anesthetic Gases in the Operating Room

Diana G. McGregor, M.B., Chair
Task Force on Trace Anesthetic Gases
Committee on Occupational Health of Operating Room Personnel



Since 1967, when Vaisman in the Soviet Union made his observations on the health of anesthesiologists in the operating room,1 there has been speculation that trace anesthetic gases may have a harmful effect on operating room personnel. Vaisman surveyed 15 percent of anesthesiologists in the Soviet Union and found that they were affected by a number of potentially unfavorable factors, including inhalation of anesthetic vapors, emotional stress, sustained attention to details of work and excessive work, which may have led to a deterioration in their health, including a deleterious effect on pregnancy and the nervous system.

Many papers followed on this subject. In 1971, Cohen et al. surveyed operating room nurses and found an increased incidence of miscarriage.2 In 1972, Knill-Jones et al. recorded an increased frequency of spontaneous abortion and congenital abnormalities in the offspring of female anesthesiologists.3 In 1973, Corbett et al. reported an increased incidence of cancers in nurse anesthetists in Michigan4 and the following year also reported an increase of birth defects in that group.5

On the other hand, in 1979, Ericson found no difference in the incidence of threatened abortions, birth weight, perinatal death rate or congenital malformations in female operating room workers,6 and Hemminki et al., in 1985, reported no significant increase in risk of spontaneous abortion or malformation in pregnant operating room workers after exposure to waste anesthetic gases.7

In the mid-1970s, the ASA Ad Hoc Committee on Effects of Trace Anesthetic Agents on Health of Operating Room Personnel8 met with members of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Research Council and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) to review the literature. They commenced the ASA National Health Survey of Operating Room Personnel. It was planned that if the study demonstrated adverse effects of trace anesthetic gases, scavenging practices would be recommended and a follow-up survey would be carried out at a later date.

However, in 1977, before the ASA study was completed, NIOSH felt it had sufficient information and published its recommendations concerning standards, data on exposure, information about scavenging and work practices, and methods for monitoring trace anesthetic gases.9 The recommended standard for halogenated agents when used alone is 2 parts per million (ppm) in the ambient air measured on a time-weighted average. If nitrous oxide was used as well, the standard was 0.5 ppm. The recommended exposure level for nitrous oxide was 25 ppm. They were all arbitrary levels and were not based on any toxic effects.

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) developed technical instructions to deal with waste anesthetic gases. Scavenging of waste gases was recommended with regular testing of the system to ensure that there were no leaks. It was the responsibility of the anesthesiologist to ensure compliance with these standards. Other aspects of the recommendations included education of employees on this subject and medical surveillance of exposed personnel. All of these requirements were to be monitored by OSHA.

The matter was by no means closed. Because of disagreement among experts on the validity and interpretation of the literature, ASA commissioned a study to evaluate previous epidemiological investigations.8 Thus, in 1985, Buring et al. reported the outcome of previous published reports by combining data from six studies and calculating the relative risk for each outcome under investigation.10 The most consistent evidence they found suggested there may be an increase in spontaneous abortion in pregnant women who worked in the operating room. However, these results could be explained by accuracy of data collected from retrospective studies using self-reported outcomes and by response/recall bias. Buring suggested that prospective cohort studies were needed to determine if there is an association between occupational exposure to trace anesthetics and adverse health outcomes.

In the same year, Tannenbaum et al. also independently reviewed the epidemiological literature.11 They determined that, due to significant flaws in the design and conduct of the observational studies, there was inadequate evidence to conclude that occupational exposure to anesthetic agents caused increased rates of spontaneous abortion or congenital anomalies. Their criticisms were based on inconsistent methodology, retrospective collection of data, different populations studied, methods of data collection, reliability of outcome data and low response rates. They also concluded that further prospective studies were necessary to state that trace anesthetics were harmful in the workplace.

More recently, Spence and colleagues conducted a survey from 1977 to 1984 of all United Kingdom female medical school graduates aged 40 years or less working in hospitals.12,13 They collected data on details of occupation, work practice, lifestyle, medical and obstetric history as well as some personal details. Of the 11,500 women surveyed, there was an 85-percent to 92-percent response rate. They found that female anesthesiologists did not have an increased risk of infertility and that there was no correlation between spontaneous abortion or development of congenital abnormalities in live-born children and the occupation of the mother, hours exposed to the operating room environment or the use of scavenging equipment. There was also no increase in the incidence of cancer or neuropathy in relation to occupation.

Based on the more recent studies and the evaluations of older epidemiological surveys, it does not appear that there are proven hazards to personnel working in the operating room from trace anesthetic gases. Nevertheless, scavenging is in routine use today and is mandated by OSHA, although it has not been shown to have had a definitive role in protecting operating room workers from adverse health outcomes. Recently, there has been some concern that the postanesthesia care unit (PACU) nurses may be exposed to trace anesthetic gases because there is no scavenging in the PACU. Levels of trace anesthetic gases in the PACU are lower than in the operating rooms; therefore, there is no logical basis to consider them harmful in this environment.

Since the first report by Vaisman, ASA has always maintained an active interest in this subject, and the Committee on Occupational Health of Operating Room Personnel has established a task force to keep abreast of any developments in this field. The Task Force on Trace Anesthetic Gases is currently writing a booklet to provide information for ASA members on all the relevant facts on this subject.



References:
  1. Vaisman AI. Work in surgical theatres and its influence on the health of anaesthesiologists. Eksp Khir. 1967; 3:44-49.
  2. Cohen EN, Bellville JW, Brown BW Jr. Anesthesia, pregnancy, and miscarriage: A study of operating room nurses and anesthetists. Anesthesiology. 1971; 34:343-347.
  3. Knill-Jones RP, Moir DD, Rodrigues LV, Spence AA. Anaesthetic practice and pregnancy. Controlled survey of women anaesthetists in the United Kingdom. Lancet. 1972; 1:1326-1328.
  4. Corbett TH, Cornell RG, Lieding K, Endres JL. Incidence of cancer among Michigan nurse anesthetists. Anesthesiology. 1973; 38:260-263.
  5. Corbett TH, Cornell RG, Endres JL, Lieding K. Birth defects among children of nurse-anesthetists. Anesthesiology. 1974; 41:341-344.
  6. Ericson A, Kallen B. Survey of infants born in 1973 or 1975 to Swedish women working in operating rooms during their pregnancies. Anesth Analg. 1979; 58:302-305.
  7. Hemminki K, Kyyronen P, Lindbohn ML. Spontaneous abortions and malformations in the offspring of nurses exposed to anaesthetic gases, cytostatic drugs, and other potential hazards in hospitals, based on registered information of outcome. J Epidemiol Commun Health. 1985: 39:141-147.
  8. Occupational disease among operating room personnel: A national study. Report of an Ad Hoc Committee on Effects of Trace Anesthetic Agents on Health of Operating Room Personnel, American Society of Anesthesiologists. 1974; 41:321-340.
  9. Criteria for a recommended standard: Occupational exposure to waste anesthetic gases and vapors. Cincinnati, OH: US Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Public Health Service, Centers for Disease Control, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. DHEW (NIOSH) Publication No. 77. 1977:140.
  10. Buring JE, Hennekens CH, Mayrent SL, et al. Health experiences of operating room personnel. Anesthesiology. 1985; 62:325-330.
  11. Tannenbaum TN, Goldberg RJ. Exposure to anesthetic gases and reproductive outcome. A review of the epidemiologic literature. J Occup Med. 1985; 27:659-668.
  12. Spence A. Occupational risks of the operating room? Data from the UK ten year prospective study. Bull NY St Postgrad. December 1985:140.
  13. Maran NJ, Knill-Jones RP, Spence AA. Infertility among female hospital doctors in the UK. Br J Anaesth. 1996; 76:581P.

Diana G. McGregor, M.B., is a consultant for the Department of Anesthesiology, Mayo Clinic, and Assistant Professor of Anesthesiology, Mayo Medical School, Rochester, Minnesota. She is also coordinator of Mayo's Intraoperative Anesthetic Waste Gas Management program in the Department of Anesthesiology.
E-mail the author.

 


return to top


 


FEATURES

Occupational Health of O.R. Personnel

ARTICLES


DEPARTMENTS


The views expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent or reflect the views, policies or actions of the American Society of Anesthesiologists.

NL Archives

Information for Authors