WHEN introduced century ago, the purpose of the surgical facemask ended up being to shield you to the patient from surgical wound infections. But will there be evidence that markers prevent wound infections? A recent review figured that it’s not at all clear whether markers prevent surgical wound infections,1and the scientific evidence with this practice is weak and insufficient.1,2Questioning the efficacy of surgical markers, a recognised routine in operating rooms worldwide, is clearly controversial due to the tradition in the practice. Recognizing the lack of sound scientific evidence, we have changed facemask routines in many units in the Karolinska University Hospital (see image by Henrik Jörnvall, M.D., Ph.D., Department of Anesthesia, Surgical Sciences and Intensive Care, Karolinska University Hospital Solna, Stockholm, Sweden).
The study was funded with a grant from your Khon Kaen University, Faculty of Medicine in Thailand: (Grant Number IN63306).
In general, the definition of “nose and mouth mask” governs a variety of protective equipment with all the primary function of reducing the transmission of particles or droplets. The most common application in powerful weight loss products would be to provide protection to the wearer (e.g., first responders), but surgical markers were originally brought to protect surrounding persons from your wearer, such as protecting patients with open wounds against infectious agents from your surgical team (3) or even the persons surrounding a tuberculosis patient from contracting the sickness via airborne droplets (4). This latter role continues to be embraced by multiple governments and regulatory agencies (5), since patients with COVID-19 may be asymptomatic but contagious for most days (6). The premise of protection from infected persons wearing a Face Mask is not hard: Wearing a breathing apparatus will reduce the spread of respiratory droplets containing viruses.
The gold standard N-95 mask is 95% able to keeping the wearer clear of inhaling viral particles. These masks are nevertheless best available front-line workers in dangerous settings where aerosols of viral particles occur. Surgical masks are less effective and cloth face coverings even less so in protecting the wearer. However even a 50% decrease in viral transmission is statistically important.