Background: Surgical site infection (SSI) in the form of postoperative deep sternal wound infection (DSWI) after cardiac surgery is a rare, but potentially fatal, complication. In addressing this, the focus is on preventive measures, as most risk factors for SSI are not controllable. Therefore, operating rooms are equipped with heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) systems to prevent airborne contamination of the wound, either through turbulent mixed air flow (TMA) or unidirectional air flow (UDAF). Aim: To investigate if the risk for SSI after cardiac surgery was decreased after changing from TMA to UDAF. Methods: This observational retrospective single-centre cohort study collected data from 1288 patients who underwent open heart surgery over 2 years. During the two study periods, institutional SSI preventive measures remained the same, with the exception of the type of HVAC system that was used. Findings: Using multi-variable logistic regression analysis that considered confounding factors (diabetes, obesity, duration of surgery, and re-operation), the hypothesis that TMA is an independent risk factor for SSI was rejected (odds ratio 0.9, 95% confidence interval 0.4–1.8; P>0.05). It was not possible to demonstrate the preventive effect of UDAF on the incidence of SSI in patients undergoing open heart surgery when compared with TMA. Conclusion: Based on these results, the use of UDAF in open heart surgery should be weighed against its low cost-effectiveness and negative environmental impact due to high electricity consumption. Reducing energy overuse by utilizing TMA for cardiac surgery can diminish the carbon footprint of operating rooms, and their contribution to climate-related health hazards.

Objective: To determine the user experience of wearing comfort of reusable sterile surgical gowns and compare these gowns with conventional disposable surgical gowns. Design: Cross-sectional survey. Setting: An academic hospital in the Netherlands. Population: Gynaecologists, surgeons, residents and operating room assistants (n=80). Methods: Quantitative and qualitative data were obtained via a written questionnaire. Participants provided subjective comments and scored the reusable gown on each individual topic with a score from 1 to 5 (1 = unsatisfactory, 2 = moderate, 3 = good, 4 = very good, 5 = excellent) and compared the reusable gown with the conventional disposable alternative (better, equal or worse). Main outcome measures: Wearing comfort: ventilation and temperature regulation, fit and length, functionality, barrier function and ease of use. Results: The results of the overall scores of the reusable gown are scored as ‘very good’ (mean 4.3, SD ± 0.5) by its users. Regarding comparison of the gowns, more than 79% (lowest score 79%, highest score 95%) of the participants scored the reusable gown equal or higher on six of seven topics. The topic ‘ease of use’ was scored equal or higher by 59% of the participants. Subjective comments provided information on possible improvements. Conclusions: The findings of this study demonstrate that there is professional acceptance regarding the utilisation of reusable surgical gowns. To facilitate broader adoption, it is imperative to foster collaboration among suppliers and healthcare institutions. The reusable surgical gown is an environmentally sustainable, safe and comfortable alternative in the operating room.