Download PDF
Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2022; 70(05): 392-400
DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1741059
Original Cardiovascular

Effects of a Technical Solution on Stress of Surgical Staff in Operating Theatres

Jan Lehrke 
1   Department of Social and Communication Psychology, Georg-Elias-Mueller-Institute of Psychology, University of Goettingen, Georg-August-Universität Goettingen, Goettingen, Germany
,
Margarete Boos
1   Department of Social and Communication Psychology, Georg-Elias-Mueller-Institute of Psychology, University of Goettingen, Georg-August-Universität Goettingen, Goettingen, Germany
,
Andreas Cordes
1   Department of Social and Communication Psychology, Georg-Elias-Mueller-Institute of Psychology, University of Goettingen, Georg-August-Universität Goettingen, Goettingen, Germany
,
Conrad Leitsmann
2   Department of Urology, University Medical Center Goettingen, Universitätsmedizin Goettingen, Goettingen, Niedersachsen, Germany
,
Martin Friedrich
3   Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, University Medical Center Goettingen, Universitätsmedizin Goettingen, Goettingen, Niedersachsen, Germany
› Author Affiliations Funding The study did not receive external funding. Therefore, the authors are independent of any funders. All authors had full access to the data in the study and can take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis. The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
› Further Information
    Permissions and Reprints All articles of this category

Abstract

Background Noise in operating theaters (OT) exceeds safety standards with detrimental effects on the health and performance of OT crews as well as patient safety. One of the reasons for these effects is the stress response to noise, which could be minimized by the Silent Operating Theater Optimisation System (SOTOS), a noise-reductive headset solution.

Methods This study evaluates the effects of the SOTOS on the stress perceived by OT crew members, operationalized through stress level and exhaustion. Twenty-one heart surgeries and 32 robot-assisted prostatectomies at the University Medical Center Goettingen, Germany were examined. Twenty-six surgeries were conducted with and 27 without the SOTOS. The SOTOS-effect is defined as a more beneficial stress course from before to after surgery, when comparing the experimental group with and control group without SOTOS.

Findings Eighty-one OT workers were investigated. The linear multilevel models revealed significant interactions between treatment and time of measurement on stress level (F[1, 406.66] = 3.62, p = 0.029) and exhaustion (F[1, 397.62] = 13.12, p = 0.00017). Nevertheless, there was no a significant main effect of surgery type on stress level (F[1, 82.69] = 1.00, p = 0.32) or on exhaustion (F[1, 80.61] = 0.58, p = 0.45). Additionally, no significant three-way interaction including surgery type, for stress level (F[1, 406.66] = 0.32, p = 0.29) or exhaustion (F[1, 397.62] = 0.03, p = 0.43), was found.

Interpretation An SOTOS-effect was confirmed: the development of stress over the course of an operation was beneficially modified by the SOTOS. Both surgery types are perceived as similarly stressful, and the staff benefits equally strongly from the intervention in both settings.

Keywords

SOTOS - noise reduction - technology - cardiovascular diseases - operating theater - surgery - surgical staff - stress - exhaustion - communication

Data Availability Statement

Data are available upon reasonable request. Please contact the corresponding author for data availability.


Authors' Contribution

J.L. contributed to the statistical analyses, the interpretation of the findings, and writing of the manuscript. M.B. contributed to the overall design and conduct of the study, management processes, and writing of the manuscript. A.C. contributed to the statistical analyses and writing of the manuscript. C.L. contributed to the management processes, implementation of the treatment in radical prostatectomies, and writing of the manuscript. M.F. contributed to the overall design of the study, management processes, writing of the manuscript, and supervision of the technical aspects and implementation of the treatment. All authors read and approved the final report and verify the underlying data and contributed to the data collection and implementation of the treatment.




Publication History

Received: 27 September 2021

Accepted: 22 November 2021

Article published online:
02 February 2022

© 2022. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

 

  • References

  • 1 Arora S, Hull L, Sevdalis N. et al. Factors compromising safety in surgery: stressful events in the operating room. Am J Surg 2010; 199 (01) 60-65
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Fritsch MH, Chacko CE, Patterson EB. Operating room sound level hazards for patients and physicians. Otol Neurotol 2010; 31 (05) 715-721
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Hasfeldt D, Laerkner E, Birkelund R. Noise in the operating room–what do we know? A review of the literature. J Perianesth Nurs 2010; 25 (06) 380-386
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Katz JD. Noise in the operating room. Anesthesiology 2014; 121 (04) 894-898
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Szalma JL, Hancock PA. Noise effects on human performance: a meta-analytic synthesis. Psychol Bull 2011; 137 (04) 682-707
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Seidman MD, Standring RT. Noise and quality of life. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2010; 7 (10) 3730-3738
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Kracht JM, Busch-Vishniac IJ, West JE. Noise in the operating rooms of Johns Hopkins Hospital. J Acoust Soc Am 2007; 121 (5 Pt1): 2673-2680
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Siu KC, Suh IH, Mukherjee M, Oleynikov D, Stergiou N. The impact of environmental noise on robot-assisted laparoscopic surgical performance. Surgery 2010; 147 (01) 107-113
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Burns KN, Sun K, Fobil JN, Neitzel RL. Heart rate, stress, and occupational noise exposure among electronic waste recycling workers. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2016; 13 (01) E140
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Babisch W. Cardiovascular effects of noise. Noise Health 2011; 13 (52) 201-204
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Münzel T, Schmidt FP, Steven S, Herzog J, Daiber A, Sørensen M. Environmental noise and the cardiovascular system. J Am Coll Cardiol 2018; 71 (06) 688-697
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Joseph A, Ulrich R. Sound control for improved outcomes in healthcare settings. Center Health Design 2007; 4: 1-15
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Cohen A. Industrial noise and medical absence, and accident record data on exposed workers. Paper presented at the International Congress on Noise as a Public Health Problem. Washington DC: US Environmental Protection Agency (Report EPA 550/9-73-0008); 1974: 441-453
    Google Scholar
  • 14 Lingard L, Espin S, Whyte S. et al. Communication failures in the operating room: an observational classification of recurrent types and effects. Qual Saf Health Care 2004; 13 (05) 330-334
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Woolf SH, Kuzel AJ, Dovey SM, Phillips Jr RL. A string of mistakes: the importance of cascade analysis in describing, counting, and preventing medical errors. Ann Fam Med 2004; 2 (04) 317-326
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Stringer B, Haines TA, Oudyk JD. Noisiness in operating theatres: nurses' perceptions and potential difficulty communicating. J Perioper Pract 2008; 18 (09) 384 , 386–391
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Loeb M. Noise and Human. Efficiency: John Wiley & Sons; 1986
    Google Scholar
  • 18 Saaty TL, Ozdemir MS. Why the magic number seven plus or minus two. Math Comput Model 2003; 38 (3–4): 233-244
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Lazarus RS, Launier R. Stressbezogene Transaktionen zwischen Person und Umwelt. In: Nitsch JR. ed. Stress: Theorien, Untersuchungen, Maßnahmen. Bern: Huber; 1981: 123-259
    Google Scholar
  • 20 Molnar M. Lärm als psychischer Stressor. Sichere Arbeit 2005; 2005 (02) 10-13
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Glass DC, Siger JE, Friedman LN. Psychic cost of adaptation to an environmental stressor. J Pers Soc Psychol 1969; 12 (03) 200-210
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Kivimäki M, Kawachi I. Work stress as a risk factor for cardiovascular disease. Curr Cardiol Rep 2015; 17 (09) 630
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Waterland P, Khan FS, Ismaili E, Cheruvu C. Environmental noise as an operative stressor during simulated laparoscopic surgery. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 2016; 26 (02) 133-136
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Ising H, Braun C. Acute and chronic endocrine effects of noise: review of the research conducted at the Institute for Water, Soil and Air Hygiene. Noise Health 2000; 2 (07) 7-24
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Friedrich MG, Boos M, Pagel M. et al. New technical solution to minimise noise exposure for surgical staff: the 'silent operating theatre optimisation system'. BMJ Innov 2017; 3 (04) 196-205
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Leitsmann C, Uhlig A, Popeneciu IV. et al. The Silent Operation Theatre Optimisation System (SOTOS©) to reduce noise pollution during da Vinci robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. J Robot Surg 2021; 15 (04) 519-527
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Tewari A, Peabody J, Sarle R. et al. Technique of da Vinci robot-assisted anatomic radical prostatectomy. Urology 2002; 60 (04) 569-572
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Schiff L, Tsafrir Z, Aoun J, Taylor A, Theoharis E, Eisenstein D. Quality of communication in robotic surgery and surgical outcomes. JSLS 2016; 20 (03) 1-5
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Kawase T, Yamaguchi K, Ogawa T. et al. Recruitment of fusiform face area associated with listening to degraded speech sounds in auditory-visual speech perception: a PET study. Neurosci Lett 2005; 382 (03) 254-258
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Hinz A, Hessel A, Brähler E. Der Leipziger Stimmungsbogen. Z Differ Diagn Psychol 2002; 23 (01) 55-65
    PubMedGoogle Scholar