{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.013133208255159476, 'fraction_numerical': 0.00375234521575985, 'mean_word_length': 4.99438202247191, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
[Importance of surgical masks for peroperative asepsis].

For more than 70 years, the surgical mask has been used under operations as part of the maintenance of aseptic conditions in the operational field. Experiments with models and investigations of sources of infection carried out over the past 20 years have shown, however, that the bacterial flora of the upper respiratory tract do not contribute to airborne contamination of the surgical wound, but that persons who are situated directly beside the field may contaminate the wound directly by droplets released by speech, sneezing or coughing. Over the last ten years the usefulness of the surgical mask has been disputed several times, and a few controlled clinical trials have been able to confirm any benefits associated with use of surgical masks. There is therefore no reason from the point of view of preventing infection to maintain a general requirement for the use of surgical masks by others than those persons who may be situated within an arm's length of the operational field or instrument table.