Sterile gowns for spinal anaesthesia – environmental cost without clinical gain: a reply
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The letter by Waite et al. highlights the need for sterile gowns in spinal anaesthesia [1]. Our local survey of 202 anaesthetists found that 178 (88%) would consider omitting a sterile gown if guidelines allowed. Currently, a number of anaesthetists reported that they do not use sterile gowns for elective and emergency obstetric spinal anaesthetics (20 (10%) and 63 (31%), respectively). The ‘rapid sequence spinal’ method described in 2010 promoting gown omission in emergencies, may explain this [2]. Guidelines from the USA, Canada and Germany do not mandate sterile gowns for spinal anaesthesia [3]. In a 2018 survey across 151 institutions in 13 countries, approximately 48% of respondents did not use sterile gowns routinely for epidural placement [4]. Barrier precautions for neuraxial procedures differ across specialities and our discussions with local colleagues support these findings. Notably, during the administration of intrathecal chemotherapy to immunosuppressed patients, haematologists do not typically wear sterile gowns. A 2008 review suggested that infectious complications from spinal anaesthesia often arise from poor aseptic practices or contaminated equipment [5]. The importance of proper facemask use and oropharyngeal sources of common meningitis-causing organisms was stressed. This was supported by a 2018 review, which found that not using a mask was the most frequent risk factor in cases of septic meningitis, with Streptococcus salivarius being the most isolated organism [6]. Our survey showed 95% (192/202) face mask compliance in elective settings and 87% (176/202) in emergencies. Considering the infectious complications reported, perhaps it is also important to question whether assistants preparing spinal anaesthesia equipment should wear face masks. Our data indicated this is not common practice (12%, 24/202). The infrequency of rare, but potentially devastating, infectious complications effectively precludes a randomised controlled trial, and there will likely never be definitive evidence to either support or reject sterile gown usage. Nonetheless, it is feasible to make a practical decision by weighing the practices of our international peers alongside the environmental impact of sterile gown usage. For instance, the carbon dioxide emissions produced yearly from sterile gown use for spinal procedures at one centre in Severn (UK) were 4000 kg of carbon dioxide equivalent (over 2500 spinal procedures annually) [3]. Reducing consumables from sterile gowns is an immediately actionable intervention to help deliver the more environmentally sustainable surgery outlined by Ledda et al. [7]. Our findings indicate many anaesthetists are forgoing sterile gowns, especially in emergency obstetric anaesthesia, mirroring results from NHS Tayside [1]. This suggests a general acceptance of changing practices among anaesthetists nationwide. If guidelines are revised, the importance of face mask use should be stressed and possibly extended to include assistants.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".