Table 2 Brief summary of the Included studies

Friberg et al. (2001)

The Journal of hospital infection

Comparative study

5

30

Surgical area contamination—comparison with or without laminar air-flow

Facility without LAF

14/30

Bacterial count in site sampled air 8 CFU/m³

Use of horizontal LAF units is seriously questionable

 < 0.001

[17]

Facility with LAF

16/30

Bacterial count in site sampled air 22 CFU/m³

Kakwani et al. (2007)

Injury

consecutive cohort-study

88

435

To study the effect of laminar air-flow on the outcomes of hemiarthroplasty

Facility without LAF

223/435

Bacterial count in site sampled air 0.45 CFU/m³

Laminar air-flow equipped theatres were recommended for hemiarthroplasty procedures

 < 0.001

[18]

Facility with LAF

212/435

Bacterial count in site sampled air 5.4 CFU/m³

Brandt et al. (2008)

Annals of Surgery

Retrospective cohort-study

44

99,230

Effect of Operating Room Ventilation with Laminar Airflow on the Surgical Site Infection (SSI) Rate

Facility without LAF

31,573/99230

Risk of SSI 1.06

OR ventilation with laminar airflow showed no benefit and associated with a significantly higher risk for severe SSI after surgery

 < 0.001

[19]

Facility with LAF

67,707/99230

Risk of SSI 1.63

Nilson et al. (2010)

The Journal of hospital infection

Comparative study

22

8550

Assessment of laminar air flow reduced infection during surgery

Facility without LAF

3256/8550

Bacterial count in site sampled air 45 CFU/m3

LAF is efficient for reducing infection in operating room

 < 0.001

[20]

Facility with LAF

4725/8550

Bacterial count in site sampled air 275 CFU/m3

Sossai et al. (2011)

Journal of orthopaedics and traumatology

Comparative study

2

17

Effect of LAF unit in reducing the bacterial contamination

Facility without LAF

6/17

Bacterial count in site sampled air 23.5 CFU/m³

LAF unit not helps in reducing the bacterial contamination of the wound area

 < 0.05

[21]

Facility with LAF

11/17

Bacterial count in site sampled air 3.5 CFU/m3

Hooper et al. (2011)

The Journal of bone and joint surgery

Retrospective study

50

36,826

Effect of laminar flow in reducing the infections after total hip and knee replacement surgery

Facility without LAF

14,730/36826

Risk of SSI 0.110

Deep infections were not reduced by using the laminar air flow

 < 0.001

[22]

Facility with LAF

9206/36826

Risk of SSI 0.082

Bosanquet et al. (2013)

Annals of the Royal college of Surgeons of England

Retrospective study

45

170

Effect of Laminar flow in reducing the surgical site infections in patients after surgery

Facility without LAF

114/170

Reduction in Surgical site infections 17%

laminar flow not helps in reducing the incidences of SSIs in patients after surgery

 < 0.05

[23]

Facility with LAF

56/170

Reduction in Surgical site infections 7%

Pinder et al. (2016)

The bone and joint journal

Observational study

19

803 065

an observational study to demonstrate whether laminar flow ventilation reduce the rate of infection

Facility without LAF

296,653/803065

Reduction in Surgical site infections 2.7%

Installation of laminar flow causes no change in the incidences of SSIs

 < 0.05

[24]

Facility with LAF

562,412/803065

Reduction in Surgical site infections 3.8%

Wang et al. (2020)

Orthopedics

Original cohort investigation

2

6972

Association of Laminar Airflow with Infection during total arthroplasty

Facility without LAF

3027/6972

Reduction in Surgical site infection 0.4%

There is no benefit of LAF in operating rooms

 < 0.05

[25]

Facility with LAF

3945/6972

Reduction in Surgical site infection 0.5%

Langvatan et al. (2020)

Journal of hospital infection

Original investigation

62

51,292

Assessment of operating room ventilation and the risk of infection after total hip arthroplasty

Facility without LAF

2046/4313

Risk of SSI 0.7

Chances of infection is less without LAF than with LAF

0.01

[26]

Facility with LAF

2647/4313

Risk of SSI 0.9