Evaluation of genotoxicity in operating room healthcare workers using the sister chromatid exchange assay

Öz

Aim: This study aimed to investigate DNA damage in operating room healthcare professionals using sister chromatid exchange (SCE) assay and compare it with a control group. Materials and Methods: In this study, SCE assay was used to evaluate SCE, mitotic index (MI), and proliferation index (PI) parameters in peripheral lymphocytes of operating room staff (n=20) and a control group (n=20). The results of operating room staff were compared with the results of the control group. Furthermore, the correlation between different factors and SCE, MI, and PI was determined using the Spearman Correlation test. The relationship between SCE and different factors was tested using the General Linear Model. Results: The average SCE level was found to be significantly higher in operating room healthcare workers compared to the control group (p˂0.001). No significant difference was found between the two groups in terms of MI and PI (p˃0.05). According to the model results, weekly working hours (p<0.05) and donor age (p<0.001) were found to be significantly associated with increased SCE. While no significant relationship was found between MI and age, smoking habits, weekly working hours, and gender, a significant relationship was found between PI and smoking habits using the General Linear Model test (p˂0.05). Conclusion: It has been observed that occupational exposure to agents specific to operating room environments may result in increased genomic instability. This finding highlights the importance of taking necessary precautions to minimize the exposure of workers to agents in operating room settings.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Operating room
• Sister chromatid exchange
• Mitotic index
• Proliferation index
• Genotoxicity

Destekleyen Kurum

No financial support was received for this study.

Etik Beyan

Ethical approval for the study was obtained from the Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart University Clinical Research Ethics Committee (Decision no: 2022/13-24).

Ameliyathane çalışanı sağlıkçılarda genotoksisitenin kardeş kromatid değişimi testi ile değerlendirilmesi

Öz

Amaç: Ameliyathane çalışanı sağlıkçıların (anestezi uzmanı hekimler, cerrahlar, ameliyathane hemşireleri, anestezi teknikerleri) çalışma zamanlarının çoğunu geçirdikleri ameliyathane ortamı fiziksel, kimyasal ve biyolojik ajanların bulunduğu bir çalışma ortamıdır. Bu nedenle bu çalışmada ameliyathane çalışanı sağlıkçılarda genotoksisite, sitotoksisite ve proliferatif markırların araştırılması ve kontrol grubu ile karşılaştırılması amaçlandı. Gereç ve Yöntem: Çalışmada, ameliyathane çalışanlarının (n=20) periferal lenfositleri üzerinde kardeş kromatid değişimi analizini kullanarak kardeş kromatid değişimi, mitotik indeks ve proliferasyon indeksinin dahil olduğu bir dizi parametre değerlendirildi. Sonuçlar kontrol grubu (n=20) sonuçları ile karşılaştırıldı. Ayrıca farklı faktörler ile kardeş kromatid değişimi, mitotik indeks ve proliferasyon indeksi arasındaki korelasyon Spearman Korelasyon testi ile belirlendi. Kardeş kromatid değişimi ile farklı faktörler arasindaki ilişki General Linear Modeli ile test edildi. Bulgular: Elde edilen sonuçlara göre ameliyathane çalışanı sağlıkçılarda kardeş kromatid değişimi kontrol grubuna göre anlamlı derecede yüksek bulundu (p˂0,001). Mitotik indeks ve proliferasyon indeksi bakımından her iki grup arasında anlamlı bir farklılık tespit edilmedi (p˃0,05). Model sonuçlarına göre, haftalık çalışma süresi (p<0.05) ve bireylerin yaşı (p<0.001) anlamlı şekilde artan kardeş kromatid değişimi frekansı ile ilişkili bulundu. Mitotik indeks ile yaş, sigara içme alışkanlığı, haftalık çalışma saati ve cinsiyet arasında anlamlı bir ilişki bulunmazken PI ile sigara içme alışkanlığı arasında anlamlı bir ilişki olduğu yapılan General Linear Model testi ile tespit edildi (p˂0,05). Sonuç: Bu meslek gruplarının, çalışma ortamlarına özgü ajanlara mesleki maruziyetleri sonucu genetik hasar riski altında olabilecekleri görülmüştür. Bu sonuç çalışanların ameliyathane ortamında maruz kaldıkları ajanlara maruziyeti minimize etmek için gerekli önlemlerin alınmasının önemi ortaya koymaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Ameliyathane
• kardeş kromatid değişimi
• mitotik indeks
• proliferasyon indeksi
• genotoksisite

Destekleyen Kurum

Bu çalışma için finansal bir destek alınmamıştır.

Etik Beyan

Çalışmanın etik kurul onayı Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart Üniversitesi Klinik Araştırmalar Etik Kurulu’ndan alınmıştır (Karar no: 2022/13-24).

Kaynakça

1. Volquind D, Bagatini A, Monteiro GMC, Londero JR, Benvenutti GD. Occupational hazards and diseases related to the practice of anesthesiology. Braz J Anesthesiol. 2013; 63(2): 227-232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjane.2012.06.006
2. Aragonés MJ, Ayora AA, Ribalta AB, Aparici AG, Lavela JM, Vidiella JS. Occupational exposure to volatile anaesthetics: a systematic review. Occup Med (Lond). 2016; 66(3): 202-207. https://doi.org/10.1093/occmed/kqv193
3. Dolgun E, Van Gıersbergen MY. Ameliyathanede kimyasal madde güvenliği. EGEHFD. 2016; 32(1): 130-140.
4. Yanardağ CH, Van Giesbergen MY. Ameliyathanelerde radyasyon güvenliği ve radyoaktif maddelere karşı alınan önlemler. Van Sağ. Bil. Derg. 2025; 18(2):201-207. https://doi.org/10.52976/vansaglik.1596638
5. Cardoso RS, Hyodo TS, Peitl JP, Neto GT, Sakamoto‐Hojo ET. Evaluation of chromosomal aberrations, micronuclei, and sister chromatid exchanges in hospital workers chronically exposed to ionizing radiation. Teratog. Carcinog. Mutagen. 2001; 21(6): 431-439. https://doi.org/10.1002/tcm.1030
6. Doukali H, Salah G, Ben Rhouma B, et al. Cytogenetic monitoring of hospital staff exposed to ionizing radiation: optimize protocol considering DNA repair genes variability. Int. J. Radiat. Biol. 2017; 93(11): 1283-1288. https://doi.org/10.1080/09553002.2017.1377361
7. Swerdlow BN. Surgical smoke and the anesthesia provider. J Anesth. 2020; 34(4): 575-584. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00540-020-02775-x
8. Yılmaz S, Çalbayram NÇ. Exposure to anesthetic gases among operating room personnel and risk of genotoxicity: A systematic review of human biomonitoring studies. J. Clin. Anesth. 2017; 35:326-331. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinane.2016.08.029

9. Borayek GE, Abu el Magd SA, El-Gohary SS, El- Naggar AM, Hammauda MA. Occupational genotoxic effects among a group of nurses exposed to anesthetic gases in operating rooms at Zagazig University Hospitals. Egypt. J. Occup. Med. 2018; 42(1): 105-122. https://doi.org/10.21608/ejom.2018.4942
10. Wrońska-Nofer T, Nofer JR, Jajte J, Dziubałtowska E, Szymczak W, Krajewski W. Oxidative DNA damage and oxidative stress in subjects occupationally exposed to nitrous oxide (N2O). Mutat Res-Fund Mol M. 2012; 731(1-2): 58-63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mrfmmm.2011.10.010
11. Baysal Z, Cengiz M, Ozgonul A, Cakir M, Celik H, Kocyigit A. Oxidative status and DNA damage in operating room personnel. Clin. Biochem. 2009; 42(3): 189-93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2008.09.103
12. Sardas S, Izdes S, Ozcagli E, Kanbak O, Kadioglu E. The role of antioxidant supplementation in occupational exposure to waste anaesthetic gases. Int Arch Occup Environ Health. 2006;80(2):154-9. DOI 10.1007/s00420-006-0115-6
13. Lewińska D, Stępnik M, Krajewski W, Arkusz J, Stańczyk M, Wrońska-Nofer T. Increased incidence of micronuclei assessed with the micronucleus assay and the fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) technique in peripheral blood lymphocytes of nurses exposed to nitrous oxide. Mutat Res. 2005; 581(1-2): 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mrgentox.2004.10.018
14. Topaloğlu FBN, Çobanoğlu HB. Assessment of genomic instability in operating rooom staff using cytokinesis bock micronucleus assay. Hosp.l Pharmacol. 2025; 12(1): 1565-71572. https://doi.org/10.5937/hpimj2501565n
15. Corvi R, Madia F. In vitro genotoxicity testinge can the performance be enhanced? Food Chem. Toxicol. 2017; 106: 600-608. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fct.2016.08.024
16. Menz J, Götz ME, Gündel U, et al. Genotoxicity assessment: opportunities, challenges and perspectives for quantitative evaluations of dose–response data. Arch Toxicol. 2023; 97:2303–2328. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00204-023-03553-w
17. Lialiaris T. Sister Chromatid Exchange. In: Stanley Maloy, Kelly Hughes. Brenner’s Encyclopedia of Genetics. 2nd ed. United States: Academic Pres; 2013. 454-458.
18. Perry P, Wolff S. New Giemsa method for the differential staining of sister chromatids. Nature. 1974; 251(5471): 156-158.
19. Cobanoglu H, Cayir A. Assessment of the genotoxic potential of temephos. Pestic. Phytomed. 2020; 35(3): 183-191. https://doi.org/10.2298/PIF2003183C
20. Akgun E, Hayal C. Assessing sister chromatid exchanges in human peripheral lymphocytes exposed to tetrachlorvinphos during G0 phase. Pestic. Phytomed. 2024; 39(1): 27-34. https://doi.org/10.2298/PIF2401027A
21. Topaktaş M, Rencüzoğulları E. Sitogenetik. 3. Baskı. Ankara: Nobel Akademik Yayıncılık; 2020.
22. Çakmak G, Eraydın D, Berkkan A, Yağar S, Burgaz S. Genetic damage of operating and recovery room personnel occupationally exposed to waste anaesthetic gases. Hum. Exp. Toxicol. 2019; 38(1): 3–10. https://doi.org/10.1177/0960327118783532
23. Bilban M, Jakopin CB, Ogrinc D. Cytogenetic tests performed on operating room personnel (the use of anaesthetic gases). Int Arch Occup Environ Health. 2005; 78: 60-64. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00420-004-0579-1
24. Aun AG, Golim MA, Nogueira FR, Souza KM, Arruda NM, Braz JRC. Monitoring early cell damage in physicians who are occupationally exposed to inhalational anesthetics. Mutat Res-Fund Mol M. 2018; 812: 5-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mrfmmm.2018.10.002
25. Rozgaj R, Kasuba V, Jazbek A. Preliminary study of cytogenetic damage in personnel exposed to anesthetic gases. Mutagenesis. 2001; 16(2): 139-143. https://doi.org/10.1093/mutage/16.2.139
26. Wilson DM, Thompson LH. Molecular mechanisms of sister-chromatid exchange. Mutat Res-Fund Mol M. 2007; 616: 11-23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mrfmmm.2006.11.017
27. Vral A, Fenech M, Thierens H. The micronucleus assay as a biological dosimeter of in vivo ionising radiation exposure. Mutagenesis. 2011; 26(1): 11–17. https://doi.org/10.1093/mutage/geq078
28. Pommier Y, Zwelling LA, Kao-Shan CS, Peng JW, Bradlay M.O. Correlations between intercalator-induced DNA strand breaks and sister chromatid exchanges, mutations, and cytotoxicity in Chinese hamster cells. Cancer Res. 1985; 45(7): 3143-3149.
29. Wojda A, Zietkiewicz E, Witt M. Effects of age and gender on micronucleus and chromosome nondisjunction frequencies in centenarians and younger subjects. Mutagenesis 2007; 22:195–200. https://doi.org/10.1093/mutage/gem002
30. Çayir A, Coskun M, Coskun M, Cobanoglu H. DNA damage and circulating cell free DNA in greenhouse workers exposed to pesticides. Environ. Mol. Mutagen. 2018; 59:161-169. https://doi.org/10.1002/em.22148
31. Pastor S, Gutierres S, Creus A, et al. Micronuclei in peripheral blood lymphocytes and buccal epithelial cells of Polish farmers exposed to pesticides. Mutat. Res. 2001; 495: 147-156. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1383-5718(01)00206-6
32. Pastor S, Lucero L, Gutierres S, et al. A follow-up study on micronucleus frequency in Spanish agricultural workers exposed to pesticides. Mutagenesis. 2002; 17(1): 79–82. https://doi.org/10.1093/mutage/17.1.79
33. Costa C, Teixeira JP, Silva S, et al. Cytogenetic and molecular biomonitoring of a Portuguese population exposed to pesticides. Mutagenesis. 2006; 21 (5): 343–350. https://doi.org/10.1093/mutage/gel039
34. Coşkun M, Çayır A, Coşkun M, Tok H. Evaluation of background DNA damage in a Turkish population measured by means of the cytokinesis-block micronucleus cytome assay. Mutat Res Genet Toxicol Environ Mutagen. 2013; 757: 23-27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mrgentox.2013.03.010
35. Kirsch-Volders M, Fenech M. Inclusion of micronuclei in nondivided mononuclear lymphocytes and necrosis/apoptosis may provide a more comprehensive cytokinesis block micronucleus assay for biomonitoring purposes. Mutagenesis. 2001; 16: 51–58. https://doi.org/10.1093/mutage/16.1.51
36. Ionescu ME, Ciocirlan M, Bechanu G, et al. Nuclear division index may predict neoplastic colorectal lesions. Maedica. 2011; 6(3): 173-178.