DOCSLIB.ORG

Risk Analysis Draft May 2008

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Risk Analysis Draft May 2008 Update Project Chapter 2: Risk Analysis Draft May 2008 1 PRINCIPLES AND METHODS FOR THE RISK ASSESSMENT OF CHEMICALS IN FOOD 2 3 CHAPTER 2: RISK ANALYSIS 4 5 Contents 6 7 CHAPTER 2: RISK ANALYSIS............................................................................................1 8 2.1 INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................1 9 2.2 THE RISK ANALYSIS PARADIGM .........................................................................................1 10 2.2.1 Definitions of hazard and risk ...................................................................................2 11 2.2.2 Role of exposure assessment......................................................................................3 12 2.2.3 Interactions between risk assessment and risk management.....................................3 13 2.2.3.1 Problem formulation ...........................................................................................4 14 2.2.3.2 Priority setting for JECFA and JMPR ................................................................4 15 2.2.4 The role of risk assessment in risk analysis...............................................................4 16 2.2.4.1 Hazard identification...........................................................................................5 17 2.2.4.2 Hazard characterization ......................................................................................5 18 2.2.4.3 Exposure assessment...........................................................................................6 19 2.2.4.4 Risk characterization...........................................................................................6 20 2.3 REFERENCES......................................................................................................................7 21 22 23 2.1 Introduction 24 JECFA and JMPR have provided scientific advice to Member States since 1956 and 1961, 25 respectively, and to the general subject committees of the CAC since its formation in 1963. 26 However, the structural framework for these interactions was quite informal until the 27 development of the risk analysis paradigm. 28 The first risk analysis paradigm for public health was proposed by the United States 29 National Academy of Sciences (NAS) (NRC, 1983) and focused on assessing the risk of 30 cancer from chemicals in food. The decision process was divided into three major steps: 31 research, risk assessment and risk management. In the NAS paradigm, the principal steps 32 were considered to be sequential, with the decision process commencing with research and 33 concluding with the decision, but such an approach does not recognize the possible influence 34 of risk analysis on data needs or of the impact of political, social and economic objectives. 35 36 2.2 The risk analysis paradigm 37 Risk analysis has since been defined by the CAC as “a process consisting of three 38 components: risk assessment, risk management and risk communication” (CAC, 1997, 2006). 39 CAC (2006) goes on to define the three components of risk analysis as follows: 40 41 Risk assessment: A scientifically based process consisting of the following steps: (i) hazard 42 identification, (ii) hazard characterization, (iii) exposure assessment, and, (iv) risk characterization. 43 44 Risk management: The process, distinct from risk assessment, of weighing policy alternatives, in 45 consultation with all interested parties, considering risk assessment and other factors relevant for the 46 health protection of consumers and for the promotion of fair trade practices, and, if needed, selecting 47 appropriate prevention and control options. 48 49 Risk communication: The interactive exchange of information and opinions throughout the risk 50 analysis process concerning risk, risk-related factors and risk perceptions, among risk assessors, risk 1 Update Project Chapter 2: Risk Analysis Draft May 2008 1 managers, consumers, industry, the academic community and other interested parties, including the 2 explanation of risk assessment findings and the basis of risk management decisions. 3 4 The risk analysis paradigm (see Figure 2.1) is a formal representation of the risk 5 analysis process in which it is made clear that there is both functional separation of the three 6 components and at the same time a requirement for communication and interaction between 7 those with responsibility for each of the three components. Within risk analysis, a functional 8 separation between risk assessors and risk managers is necessary to ensure scientific 9 objectivity of the risk assessment process. Further background information on risk analysis 10 can be found in Kaferstein & Hueston (2000). 11 12 13 14 Figure 2.1. Risk analysis (from FAO/WHO, 1997b) 15 16 The use of risk analysis methodology facilitates consistent and orderly decision- 17 making. Risk assessment is undertaken by the Joint Expert Committees, like JECFA and 18 JMPR, rather than the Codex Committees. Joint Expert Committees base their evaluations on 19 scientific principles and ensure necessary consistency in their risk assessment determinations. 20 The respective Codex Committees take responsibility as risk managers in making the final 21 decisions on establishing maximum limits for pesticide residues, veterinary drugs, 22 contaminants and additives in food. The CAC recognized the need to revisit risk analysis 23 approaches applied by Codex Committees and the Joint Expert Committees. At the request of 24 the CAC, three consecutive Joint FAO/WHO Expert Consultations were held between 1995 25 and 1998 on the application of risk analysis to food standard issues (FAO/WHO, 1995, 26 1997b, 1999). 27 28 2.2.1 Definitions of hazard and risk 29 The Joint Expert Consultations were by and large devoted to the three components of risk 30 analysis: risk assessment, risk management and risk communication, respectively. The first 31 Consultation, held in 1995 in Geneva, explored the risk analysis domain and focused on risk 32 assessment (FAO/WHO, 1995). The Consultation was also aware of the need for uniform 33 terminology on risk analysis in the work of Codex and considered risk analysis definitions 34 from different sources. The Consultation drafted definitions of risk analysis terms related to 35 food safety and recommended them to the CAC. The CAC subsequently amended these 36 definitions, adopted them on an interim basis and published the definitions in the Procedural 37 Manual (FAO/WHO, 2001, and subsequent updates). The definition of two terms—hazard 38 and risk—should be mentioned in particular. These are fundamental in the risk analysis 39 process, but different words for these two terms do not exist in many languages other than 40 English. Codex has adopted the following definitions for hazard and risk in relation to food to 41 cover not only chemical agents, but also biological and physical agents (CAC, 1997, 2006): 42 43 Hazard: a biological, chemical or physical agent in, or condition of, food with the potential to cause an 44 adverse health effect. 45 46 Risk: a function of the probability of an adverse health effect and the severity of that effect, 47 consequential to a hazard(s) in food. 48 49 The Codex definition of hazard differs from that of other bodies, for which a hazard is a 50 property associated with the chemical or agent rather than the chemical or agent itself. Thus, 51 a single chemical could represent multiple hazards (e.g. it could be a reproductive toxicant 2 Update Project Chapter 2: Risk Analysis Draft May 2008 1 and a carcinogen). As part of the project for the Harmonization of Approaches to the 2 Assessment of Risk from Exposure to Chemicals, the IPCS (2004) has defined hazard and 3 risk assessment slightly differently from Codex: 4 5 Hazard: Inherent property of an agent or situation having the potential to cause adverse effects 6 when an organism, system or (sub) population is exposed to that agent. 7 8 Risk: The probability of an adverse effect in an organism, system or (sub)population caused under 9 specified circumstances by exposure to an agent. 10 11 It is these IPCS definitions that most clearly describe the approaches of JECFA and JMPR. 12 13 2.2.2 Role of exposure assessment 14 It should be kept in mind that in general, risk analysis principles apply irrespective of the 15 nature of the hazard. The definition of hazard relates to chemical and microbiological 16 contaminants as well as to changes in the condition of food as a result of genetic 17 modification. Several components of the risk analysis process were subject of additional Joint 18 Expert Consultations. Two Consultations focused on exposure assessment (FAO/WHO, 19 1997a, 2000). 20 With regard to chemical hazards, the Consultations pointed to the further need for 21 harmonized approaches to the risk assessment of food additives, contaminants and residues of 22 pesticides and veterinary drugs, particularly in the assessment of exposure. Different 23 approaches are currently applied by JECFA and JMPR in establishing standards for the 24 various classes of chemicals. These approaches sometimes differ for historical reasons only, 25 while in other cases they are fully justifiable. In view of the increased importance of Codex 26 standards under the WTO Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary 27 Measures (the SPS Agreement), harmonization of these approaches should be pursued to the 28 extent possible. The Consultations made interesting
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Risk Assessment Guidance
    Risk Assessment Guidance The assessor can assign values for the hazard severity (a) and likelihood of occurrence (b) (taking into account the frequency and duration of exposure) on a scale of 1 to 5, then multiply them together to give the rating band: Hazard Severity (a) Likelihood of Occurrence (b) 1 – Trivial (eg discomfort, slight bruising, self-help recovery) 1 – Remote (almost never) 2 – Minor (eg small cut, abrasion, basic first aid need) 2 – Unlikely (occurs rarely) 3 – Moderate (eg strain, sprain, incapacitation > 3 days) 3 – Possible (could occur, but uncommon) 4 – Serious (eg fracture, hospitalisation >24 hrs, incapacitation >4 4 – Likely (recurrent but not frequent) weeks) 5 – Very likely (occurs frequently) 5 – Fatal (single or multiple) The risk rating (high, medium or low) indicates the level of response required to be taken when designing the action plan. Trivial Minor Moderate Serious Fatal Rating Bands (a x b) Remote 1 2 3 4 5 LOW RISK MEDIUM RISK HIGH RISK (1 – 8) (9 - 12) (15 - 25) Unlikely 2 4 6 8 10 Continue, but Continue, but -STOP THE Possible review implement ACTIVITY- 3 6 9 12 15 periodically to additional Identify new ensure controls reasonably controls. Activity Likely remain effective practicable must not controls where 4 8 12 16 20 proceed until possible and risks are Very monitor regularly reduced to a low likely 5 10 15 20 25 or medium level 1 Risk Assessments There are a number of explanations needed in order to understand the process and the form used in this example: HAZARD: Anything that has the potential to cause harm.
    [Show full text]
  • Guidelines for Human Exposure Assessment Risk Assessment Forum
    EPA/100/B-19/001 October 2019 www.epa.gov/risk Guidelines for Human Exposure Assessment Risk Assessment Forum EPA/100/B-19/001 October 2019 Guidelines for Human Exposure Assessment Risk Assessment Forum U.S. Environmental Protection Agency DISCLAIMER This document has been reviewed in accordance with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) policy. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use. Preferred citation: U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). (2019). Guidelines for Human Exposure Assessment. (EPA/100/B-19/001). Washington, D.C.: Risk Assessment Forum, U.S. EPA. Page | ii TABLE OF CONTENTS DISCLAIMER ..................................................................................................................................... ii LIST OF TABLES.............................................................................................................................. vii LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................................... viii LIST OF BOXES ................................................................................................................................ ix ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS .............................................................................................. x PREFACE ........................................................................................................................................... xi AUTHORS, CONTRIBUTORS AND
    [Show full text]
  • Operational Risk Management Guide
    OPERATIONAL RISK MANAGEMENT GUIDE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FOREST SERVICE 2020 Last Updated 02/26/2020 RISK MANAGEMENT COUNCIL IN COOPERATION WITH THE OFFICE OF SAFETY & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH and THE NATIONAL AVIATION SAFETY COUNCIL Contents Contents ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 2 Executive Summary .................................................................................................................................................................. i Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................................... 1 What is Operational Risk Management? ................................................................................................................... 1 The Terminology of ORM ................................................................................................................................................ 1 Principles of ORM Application ........................................................................................................................................... 6 The Five-Step ORM Process ................................................................................................................................................ 7 Step 1: Identify Hazards ..................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Safety Manual
    Eastern Elevator Safety and Health Manual January 2017 Page 1 of 125 SAFETY AND HEALTH MANUAL Index by Section Number Safety Policy ................................................................................................................. …4 Section 1: General Health and Safety Policies ............................................................. …5 Section 2: Hazard Communication ................................................................................ ..13 Section 3: Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) ......................................................... ..18 Section 4: Emergency Action Plan ................................................................................ ..31 Section 5: Fall Protection .............................................................................................. ..34 Section 6: Ladder Safety ............................................................................................... ..38 Section 7: Bloodborne Pathogens ................................................................................ ..42 Section 8: Motor Vehicle / Fleet Safety ......................................................................... ..47 Section 9: Hearing Conservation .................................................................................. ..50 Section 10: Lockout / Tagout ........................................................................................ ..53 Section 11: Fire Prevention ..........................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • A PRACTICAL GUIDE for USE of REAL TIME DETECTION SYSTEMS for WORKER PROTECTION and COMPLIANCE with OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE LIMITS May 2019
    A PRACTICAL GUIDE FOR USE OF REAL TIME DETECTION SYSTEMS FOR WORKER PROTECTION AND COMPLIANCE WITH OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE LIMITS May 2019 WHITE PAPER May 2019 A PRACTICAL GUIDE FOR USE OF REAL TIME DETECTION SYSTEMS FOR WORKER PROTECTION AND COMPLIANCE WITH OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE LIMITS Prepared by: Energy Facility Contractor’s Group (EFCOG) Industrial Hygiene and Safety Task Group and Members of the American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA) Exposure Assessment Strategies Group Dina Siegel1, David Abrams 2, John Hill3, Steven Jahn2, Phil Smith2, Kayla Thomas4 1 Los Alamos National Laboratory 2 AIHA Exposure Assessment Strategies Committee 3 Savannah River Site 4 Kansas City National Security Campus A PRACTICAL GUIDE FOR USE OF REAL TIME DETECTION SYSTEMS FOR WORKER PROTECTION AND COMPLIANCE WITH OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE LIMITS May 2019 Table of Contents 1.0 Executive Summary 2.0 Introduction 3.0 Discussion 3.1 Occupational Exposure Assessment 3.2 Regulatory Compliance 3.3 Occupational Exposure Limits 3.4 Traditional Use of Real Time Detection Systems 3.5 Use and Limitations of Real Time Detection Systems 3.6 Use of Real Time Detection Systems for Compliance 3.7 Documentation/Reporting of Real Time Detection Systems Results 3.8 Peak Exposures Data Interpretations 3.9 Conclusions 4.0 Matrices 5.0 References 6.0 Attachments Page | 2 A PRACTICAL GUIDE FOR USE OF REAL TIME DETECTION SYSTEMS FOR WORKER PROTECTION AND COMPLIANCE WITH OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE LIMITS May 2019 1.0 Executive Summary This white paper presents practical guidance for field industrial hygiene personnel in the use and application of real time detection systems (RTDS) for exposure monitoring.
    [Show full text]
  • Supplementary File 2: Assessment of Quality and Bias
    Supplementary File 2: Assessment of quality and bias In preparing the tool, it was not possible to identify a dominant factor for which studies should be controlled for, instead recognising several key variables. Comparability was therefore scored against a single criterion of ‘effectively controlling for relevant factors’, meaning a maximum of eight points, rather than nine, were available. Where a nested cohort or matched case group was identified within an interventional study, it was agreed that the quality of the study as applied to impact of ETS would be appraised, and not the main interventional study outcomes. This acknowledged that high quality trials not relevant to the impact of ETS exposure could contain poor quality cohorts that were appropriate for inclusion, or vice versa. A point was awarded for satisfactory response on each question, indicated by a tick in the relevant table. Cohort Outcome Measures Domain and outcomes Point Representativeness of the exposed cohort A Truly representative of the paediatric population undergoing surgery B Somewhat representative of the paediatric population undergoing surgery C Selected subgroup of the population undergoing surgery D No description of the cohort selection process Selection of the non-exposed cohort A Drawn from the same community as the exposed cohort B Drawn from a different source C No description of the derivation of the non-exposed cohort Ascertainment of exposure A Secure record (e.g. surgical record, biological test) B Structured interview C Written self-report of self-completed questionnaire D No description Demonstration that outcome of interest was not present at start of the study A Yes B No Comparability of cohorts on the basis of the design or analysis A Study controls for reasonable factors (e.g.
    [Show full text]
  • Exposure Assessment Concepts
    This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike License. Your use of this material constitutes acceptance of that license and the conditions of use of materials on this site. Copyright 2006, The Johns Hopkins University, Patrick Breysse, and Peter S. J. Lees. All rights reserved. Use of these materials permitted only in accordance with license rights granted. Materials provided “AS IS”; no representations or warranties provided. User assumes all responsibility for use, and all liability related thereto, and must independently review all materials for accuracy and efficacy. May contain materials owned by others. User is responsible for obtaining permissions for use from third parties as needed. Exposure Assessment Concepts Patrick N. Breysse, PhD, CIH Peter S.J. Lees, PhD, CIH Johns Hopkins University Section A Introduction Origin of Hygiene Hygeia was the Greek goddess of health Rene Dubos wrote: “For the worshippers of Hygeia, health is … a positive attribute to which men are entitled if they govern their lives wisely” Prevention is key 4 Exposure—Definition Contact between the outer boundary of the human body (skin, nose, lungs, GI tract) and a contaminant Requires the simultaneous presence of a contaminant and the contact between the person and that medium Quantified by concentration of contaminant and time and frequency of contact 5 Route of Exposure Inhalation Ingestion Dermal Direct injection Inhalation is most common in workplace—but not in general environment Moving towards concept of total exposure 6 Exposure Assessment Magnitude – Concentration in media (ppm, f/cc) Duration – Minutes, hours, days, working life, lifetime Frequency – Daily, weekly, seasonally 7 Types of Air Sampling: Time Source: U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Community Exposure Assessment (Excluding Health
    (excluding health Community Exposure Assessment care providers) Physical distance >2 Duration of interaction1 Ventilation3 Source control and PPE Risk assessment metres maintained2 Case and contact are both wearing masks (cloth or medical); OR Case is wearing both a mask (cloth or Low risk medical) and a face shield4 regardless of PPE worn by (self-monitor)5 <15 minutes (except No Regardless of contact; OR Contact is wearing both a mask and eye for very brief ventilation protection regardless of PPE worn by case interactions such as High risk passing by someone) Either case or contact is not wearing a mask (self-isolate)6 Regardless of Low risk Yes Regardless of PPE worn by either case or contact ventilation (self-monitor) Case and contact are both wearing masks (cloth or medical); OR Case is wearing both a mask (cloth or Low risk medical) and a face shield regardless of PPE worn (self-monitor) Well by contact; OR Contact is wearing both a mask and ventilated eye protection regardless of PPE worn by case No High risk Either case or contact is not wearing a mask (self-isolate) Poorly High risk Regardless of PPE worn by either case or contact ventilated (self-isolate) 15 minutes – 1 hour Well Low risk Regardless of PPE worn by either case or contact ventilated (self-monitor) Case and contact are both wearing masks (cloth or medical); OR Case is wearing both a mask (cloth or Low risk Yes medical) and a face shield regardless of PPE worn (self-monitor) Poorly by contact; OR Contact is wearing both a mask and ventilated eye protection regardless of PPE worn by case High risk Either case or contact is not wearing a mask (self-isolate) COVID-19 Info-Line 905-688-8248 press 7 Toll-free: 1-888-505-6074 niagararegion.ca/COVID19 Created December 2020.
    [Show full text]
  • VHA Dir 7702, Industrial Hygiene Exposure Assessment Program
    Department of Veterans Affairs VHA DIRECTIVE 7702 Veterans Health Administration Transmittal Sheet Washington, DC 20420 April 29, 2016 INDUSTRIAL HYGIENE EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT PROGRAM 1. REASON FOR ISSUE: The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) has developed this program to meet Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) requirements established by VA Directive 7700, Occupational Safety and Health. This Directive specifies actions and expected performance criteria for Industrial Hygiene programs. 2. SUMMARY OF CONTENTS: Hazardous exposures adversely impact VHA staff, patients, and visitors. This Directive establishes VHA policy for implementing the Industrial Hygiene Exposure Assessment Program. The Program establishes the responsibilities and procedures for preventing adverse health effects from occupational exposures, ensures compliance with laws and regulations mandating a safe and healthful working environment, and provides a comprehensive approach for prioritizing and managing occupational exposure risks. The systemic approach described in this Directive will allow designated staff to anticipate, recognize, evaluate, and control occupational exposure hazards present in VHA facilities. 3. RELATED ISSUES: VA Directive 7700 and VHA Directive 7701. 4. RESPONSIBLE OFFICE: The Director, Office of Occupational Safety Health and Green Environmental Management (GEMS) Programs (10NA8) is responsible for the contents of this Directive. Questions may be referred to 202-632-7889. 5. RESCISSIONS: None. 6. RECERTIFICATION: This VHA Directive is due to be recertified on or before the last working day of April 2021. David J. Shulkin, M.D. Under Secretary for Health DISTRIBUTION: Emailed to the VHA Publication Distribution List on 5/3/2016. T-1 April 29, 2016 VHA DIRECTIVE 7702 INDUSTRIAL HYGIENE EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT PROGRAM 1. PURPOSE This Veterans Health Administration (VHA) Directive provides VHA policy for implementing the elements of the Industrial Hygiene (IH) program.
    [Show full text]
  • Assigning Risk Assessment Codes
    Exhibit 1 240 FW 5 Page 1 of 4 Assigning Risk Assessment Codes The Department of the Interior describes its Risk Assessment System in 485 DM 6, Inspections and Abatements. The policy mandates inspections, assignment of Risk Assessment Codes (RACs) to identified hazards, and abatement of the hazards within certain timeframes. The RACs are based on the hazard severity, probability of occurrence, and number of people exposed or potentially lost in the event of an accident. While all hazards should be resolved as soon as possible, the Risk Assessment System provides managers with safety risk ranking information to assist them in making informed decisions concerning hazard control. It also provides decisionmakers with a consistent and defensible approach to prioritizing safety hazard abatement efforts among the many competing resource demands and priorities. Step 1 – Learn the terminology Hazard – Anything that may cause harm, injury, or ill health. Risk – Risk is a measure of both the likelihood (probability) and the consequence (severity) of all hazards related to an activity or condition. Risk Assessment System (RAS) – A method provided by the Department to assist managers to prioritize safety and health deficiencies. Risk Assessment Code (RAC) – A hazard number ranking system from 1 (the highest level of risk) to 5 (the lowest level of risk). Risk Assessment Matrix – A tool used to assign RACs (see example below). XX/XX/13 OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH Exhibit 1 240 FW 5 Page 2 of 4 Step 2 – Using the RAC Matrix Tool, assigning a code Evaluate each deficiency based on both the likelihood (probability) of an outcome occurring and the consequence (severity) of a potential outcome.
    [Show full text]
  • Environmental Compliance (Ec)
    LANL Waste Characterization, Reduction, and Repackaging Facility DOE ORR 7/21 OCCUPATIONAL AND INDUSTRIAL SAFETY AND HYGIENE PROGRAM (OSH) OBJECTIVE OSH.1: LANS has established and implemented Occupational and Industrial Safety and Hygiene (OISH) programs to ensure safe accomplishment of work at WCRR. Sufficient numbers of qualified personnel as well as adequate facilities and equipment are available to support WCRRF operations. (CRs 1, 4, 6, and 7) CRITERIA 1. The IH Program has conducted current and comprehensive exposure assessments. An adequate monitoring program is in place including equipment. (Exposure to radioactive contamination will be evaluated in the Radiological Protection Functional Area). (TSR; 10 CFR 851, CRD 18) 2. The Occupational Safety program has incorporated hazards and appropriate controls for the WCRR work activities such as ladder safety, electrical, Lockout/Tagout, hotwork, and vehicular safety. (TSR; 10 CFR 851) 3. Hoisting and rigging program complies with TSR requirements concerning spotters (TSR 5.6.10) and engineered lifts (5.10.3). Forklift management and operational procedures comply with TSR controls. (TSR; 10 CFR 851) 4. Adequate numbers of Industrial Hygiene and Occupational Safety professionals are assigned and perform effectively (work place surveillances, work package reviews, walk-down, etc). 5. Adequate facilities are available to ensure WCRRF operational support in the area of occupational and industrial safety. 6. The level of knowledge of occupational and industrial safety personnel concerning their roles and responsibilities for WCRR operations is adequate. (DOE O 440.1A, DOE O 5480.20A) APPROACH Requirement: • 10 CFR 851, Worker Safety and Health Program Document Review: • Review Contractor Management Self Assessment Report (MSA), and Contractor Operational Readiness Review (CORR) Report and corrective actions for all findings to determine if: – All Pre-Start Findings are resolved and the corrective actions are appropriate for the issue determined.
    [Show full text]
  • Incidence of Laryngospasm and Bronchospasm in Pediatric Adenotonsillectomy
    University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln US Army Research U.S. Department of Defense 2012 Incidence of Laryngospasm and Bronchospasm in Pediatric Adenotonsillectomy Michael I. Orestes Walter Reed Army Medical Center Lina Lander University of Nebraska Medical Center, [email protected] Susan Verghese Children’s National Medical Center Rahul K. Shah Children’s National Medical Center, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/usarmyresearch Orestes, Michael I.; Lander, Lina; Verghese, Susan; and Shah, Rahul K., "Incidence of Laryngospasm and Bronchospasm in Pediatric Adenotonsillectomy" (2012). US Army Research. 257. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/usarmyresearch/257 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the U.S. Department of Defense at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in US Army Research by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. The Laryngoscope VC 2012 The American Laryngological, Rhinological and Otological Society, Inc. Incidence of Laryngospasm and Bronchospasm in Pediatric Adenotonsillectomy Michael I. Orestes, MD; Lina Lander, ScD; Susan Verghese, MD; Rahul K. Shah, MD Objectives/Hypothesis: To evaluate and describe airway complications in pediatric adenotonsillectomy. Study Design: Retrospective case-control study. Methods: A chart review of patients that underwent adenotonsillectomy between 2006 and 2010 was performed. Peri- operative complications, patient characteristics, and surgeon and anesthesia technique were recorded. Results: A total of 682 charts were reviewed. Eleven cases (1.6%) of laryngospasm were identified: one was preopera- tive, seven occurred in the operating room postextubation, and three occurred in the recovery area. Four patients were given succinylcholine, one was reintubated, and the other cases were managed conservatively.
    [Show full text]