Use of Surgical Masks in the Operating Room: A Review of the Clinical Effectiveness and Guidelines
Rapid Response Report: Summary with Critical Appraisal
Postoperative wound infections increase length of hospital stay, cost of care, and morbidity. Infections occurring in a wound created by an invasive surgical procedure are referred to as surgical site infections (SSIs). SSIs account for a significant fraction of health care associated infections, however since many of these infections occur after discharge from the hospital their frequency is likely underestimated. While many SSIs cause no additional complications, they can be associated with considerable morbidity, with estimates at over one third of postoperative deaths at least partly attributable to SSIs.
In the operating room (OR) there are procedures and practices in place intended to reduce the probability of infectious material transfer between OR staff and patients. Surgical face masks (SFMs) provide a physical barrier between bacteria of oropharyngeal and nasopharyngeal origin and an open patient wound. Wearing a SFM in the OR is one of many long standing preventative practices, yet controversy exists as to the clinical effectiveness of SFMs in reducing the frequency of SSIs. Additionally, SFMs potentially protect OR staff by providing a physical barrier to infectious bodily fluid splashes from the patient. General purpose disposable SFMs however, are not specifically designed to protect the wearer from airborne infectious particulates. A review of clinical effectiveness and evidence-based guidelines for mask use in the OR can inform practice decisions to minimize the occurrence of SSIs and OR staff infections.
The purpose of this report is to retrieve and review the existing evidence on the clinical effectiveness of wearing SFMs in the OR to prevent infections of patients and OR staff.
Disclaimer: The Rapid Response Service is an information service for those involved in planning and providing health care in Canada. Rapid responses are based on a limited literature search and are not comprehensive, systematic reviews. The intent is to provide a list of sources of the best evidence on the topic that CADTH could identify using all reasonable efforts within the time allowed. Rapid responses should be considered along with other types of information and health care considerations. The information included in this response is not intended to replace professional medical advice, nor should it be construed as a recommendation for or against the use of a particular health technology. Readers are also cautioned that a lack of good quality evidence does not necessarily mean a lack of effectiveness particularly in the case of new and emerging health technologies, for which little information can be found, but which may in future prove to be effective. While CADTH has taken care in the preparation of the report to ensure that its contents are accurate, complete and up to date, CADTH does not make any guarantee to that effect. CADTH is not liable for any loss or damages resulting from use of the information in the report.
Copyright: This report contains CADTH copyright material and may contain material in which a third party owns copyright. This report may be used for the purposes of research or private study only. It may not be copied, posted on a web site, redistributed by email or stored on an electronic system without the prior written permission of CADTH or applicable copyright owner.
Links: This report may contain links to other information available on the websites of third parties on the Internet. CADTH does not have control over the content of such sites. Use of third party sites is governed by the owners’ own terms and conditions.
Except where otherwise noted, this work is distributed under the terms of a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial- NoDerivatives 4.0 International licence (CC BY-NC-ND), a copy of which is available at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/