Session
2026 Session 2
Location
Orem, UT
Start Date
5-4-2026 9:20 AM
Description
Background: Supplemental oxygen given continuously at 100% O2 increases the risk of surgical fire during facial plastics or occuloplastics procedures. APSF recommends delivering a 30% oxygen blend, which reduces the risk of fire, but only minimally benefits patient oxygenation. An oxygen delivery device claims to reduces surgical fire risk while increasing alveolar O2 by synchronizing oxygen delivery with patient inhalation. We evaluated the surgical fire risk of these three oxygen delivery methods in a bench simulation.
Methods: We used a breathing simulator connected to a 3D printed nose with a nasal cannula underneath surgical drapes and sampled the spatial oxygen concentration under the drapes with each oxygen delivery method. We then used a butane lighter to ignite surgical drapes and observe flammability and flame propagation with the different oxygen conditions.
Results and Conclusions: Using a 30% oxygen blend effectively reduces surgical fire risk at any oxygen flow rate, but oxygenation benefit to the patient is limited. Continuous flow of 100% oxygen effectively oxygenates the patient, but poses high risk for surgical fire, even at a flow rate of 1 L/min. Breath-synchronized oxygen delivery provides a higher alveolar oxygen level than 30% blend, and provides a low risk of surgical fire, especially when used at flow rates of 1 or 2 L/min.
Mitigating Surgical Fire Risk in Procedural Sedation With Breath-Synchronized Oxygen Delivery
Orem, UT
Background: Supplemental oxygen given continuously at 100% O2 increases the risk of surgical fire during facial plastics or occuloplastics procedures. APSF recommends delivering a 30% oxygen blend, which reduces the risk of fire, but only minimally benefits patient oxygenation. An oxygen delivery device claims to reduces surgical fire risk while increasing alveolar O2 by synchronizing oxygen delivery with patient inhalation. We evaluated the surgical fire risk of these three oxygen delivery methods in a bench simulation.
Methods: We used a breathing simulator connected to a 3D printed nose with a nasal cannula underneath surgical drapes and sampled the spatial oxygen concentration under the drapes with each oxygen delivery method. We then used a butane lighter to ignite surgical drapes and observe flammability and flame propagation with the different oxygen conditions.
Results and Conclusions: Using a 30% oxygen blend effectively reduces surgical fire risk at any oxygen flow rate, but oxygenation benefit to the patient is limited. Continuous flow of 100% oxygen effectively oxygenates the patient, but poses high risk for surgical fire, even at a flow rate of 1 L/min. Breath-synchronized oxygen delivery provides a higher alveolar oxygen level than 30% blend, and provides a low risk of surgical fire, especially when used at flow rates of 1 or 2 L/min.