Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 4 de 4
Filter
1.
Otol Neurotol ; 42(4): 614-622, 2021 04 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1313901

ABSTRACT

HYPOTHESIS: Aerosols are generated during mastoidectomy and mitigation strategies may effectively reduce aerosol spread. BACKGROUND: An objective understanding of aerosol generation and the effectiveness of mitigation strategies can inform interventions to reduce aerosol risk from mastoidectomy and other open surgeries involving drilling. METHODS: Cadaveric and fluorescent three-dimensional printed temporal bone models were drilled under variable conditions and mitigation methods. Aerosol production was measured with a cascade impactor set to detect particle sizes under 14.1 µm. Field contamination was determined with examination under UV light. RESULTS: Drilling of cadaveric bones and three-dimensional models resulted in strongly positive aerosol production, measuring positive in all eight impactor stages for the cadaver trials. This occurred regardless of using coarse or cutting burs, irrigation, a handheld suction, or an additional parked suction. The only mitigation factor that led to a completely negative aerosol result in all eight stages was placing an additional microscope drape to surround the field. Bone dust was scattered in all directions from the drill, including on the microscope, the surgeon, and visually suspended in the air for all but the drape trial. CONCLUSIONS: Aerosols are generated with drilling the mastoid. Using an additional microscope drape to cover the surgical field was an effective mitigation strategy to prevent fine aerosol dispersion while drilling.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/prevention & control , Mastoidectomy/adverse effects , Aerosols , COVID-19/transmission , Cadaver , Humans , Mastoidectomy/instrumentation , Mastoidectomy/methods , SARS-CoV-2
2.
Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg ; 164(2): 285-293, 2021 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1140419

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To define the aerosol and droplet risks associated with endonasal drilling and to identify mitigation strategies. STUDY DESIGN: Simulation series with fluorescent 3-dimensional (3D) printed sinonasal models and deidentified cadaveric heads. SETTINGS: Dedicated surgical laboratory. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Cadaveric specimens irrigated with fluorescent tracer and fluorescent 3D-printed models were drilled. A cascade impactor was used to collect aerosols and small droplets of various aerodynamic diameters under 15 µm. Large droplet generation was measured by evaluating the field for fluorescent debris. Aerosol plumes through the nares were generated via nebulizer, and mitigation measures, including suction and SPIWay devices, nasal sheaths, were evaluated regarding reduction of aerosol escape from the nose. RESULTS: The drilling of cadaveric specimens without flexible suction generated aerosols ≤3.30 µm, and drilling of 3D sinonasal models consistently produced aerosols ≤14.1 µm. Mitigation with SPIWay or diameter-restricted SPIWay produced same results. There was minimal field contamination in the cadaveric models, 0% to 2.77% field tarp area, regardless of drill burr type or drilling location; cutting burr drilling without suction in the 3D model yielded the worst contamination field (36.1%), followed by coarse diamond drilling without suction (19.4%). The simple placement of a flexible suction instrument in the nasal cavity or nasopharynx led to complete elimination of all aerosols ≤14.1 µm, as evaluated by a cascade impactor positioned immediately at the nares. CONCLUSION: Given the findings regarding aerosol risk reduction, we strongly recommend that physicians use a suction instrument in the nasal cavity or nasopharynx during endonasal surgery in the COVID-19 era.


Subject(s)
Aerosols , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19/transmission , Infectious Disease Transmission, Patient-to-Professional/prevention & control , Nasal Surgical Procedures/adverse effects , Natural Orifice Endoscopic Surgery/adverse effects , Cadaver , Humans , Hydrodynamics , Intubation, Intratracheal , Models, Biological , Personal Protective Equipment , Printing, Three-Dimensional , Risk Assessment
3.
Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol ; 130(11): 1245-1253, 2021 Nov.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1140414

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: Define aerosol and droplet risks associated with routine otolaryngology clinic procedures during the COVID-19 era. METHODS: Clinical procedures were simulated in cadaveric heads whose oral and nasal cavities were coated with fluorescent tracer (vitamin B2) and breathing was manually simulated through retrograde intubation. A cascade impactor placed adjacent to the nares collected generated particles with aerodynamic diameters ≤14.1 µm. The 3D printed models and syringes were used to simulate middle and external ear suctioning as well as open suctioning, respectively. Provider's personal protective equipment (PPE) and procedural field contamination were also recorded for all trials using vitamin B2 fluorescent tracer. RESULTS: The positive controls of nebulized vitamin B2 produced aerosol particles ≤3.30 µm and endonasal drilling of a 3D model generated particles ≤14.1 µm. As compared with positive controls, aerosols and small droplets with aerodynamic diameter ≤14.1 µm were not detected during rigid nasal endoscopy, flexible fiberoptic laryngoscopy, and rigid nasal suction of cadavers with simulated breathing. There was minimal to no field contamination in all 3 scenarios. Middle and external ear suctioning and open container suctioning did not result in any detectable droplet contamination. The clinic suction unit contained all fluorescent material without surrounding environmental contamination. CONCLUSION: While patients' coughing and sneezing may create a baseline risk for providers, this study demonstrates that nasal endoscopy, flexible laryngoscopy, and suctioning inherently do not pose an additional risk in terms of aerosol and small droplet generation. An overarching generalization cannot be made about endoscopy or suctioning being an aerosol generating procedure. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.


Subject(s)
Aerosols/adverse effects , COVID-19 , Disease Transmission, Infectious/prevention & control , Endoscopy , Otolaryngology , Risk Adjustment/methods , Suction , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19/transmission , Cadaver , Endoscopy/adverse effects , Endoscopy/instrumentation , Endoscopy/methods , Humans , Otolaryngology/methods , Otolaryngology/standards , Outcome Assessment, Health Care , Personal Protective Equipment/classification , Personal Protective Equipment/virology , Research Design , Risk Assessment/methods , SARS-CoV-2 , Suction/adverse effects , Suction/instrumentation , Suction/methods
4.
Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol ; 130(3): 280-285, 2021 Mar.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-714251

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: During the COVID-19 era, a reliable method for tracing aerosols and droplets generated during otolaryngology procedures is needed to accurately assess contamination risk and to develop mitigation measures. Prior studies have not investigated the reliability of different fluorescent tracers for the purpose of studying aerosols and small droplets. Objectives include (1) comparing vitamin B2, fluorescein, and a commercial fluorescent green dye in terms of particle dispersion pattern, suspension into aerosols and small droplets, and fluorescence in aerosolized form and (2) determining the utility of vitamin B2 as a fluorescent tracer coating the aerodigestive tract mucosa in otolaryngology contamination models. METHODS: Vitamin B2, fluorescein, and a commercial fluorescent dye were aerosolized using a nebulizer and passed through the nasal cavity from the trachea in a retrograde-intubated cadaveric head. In another scenario, vitamin B2 was irrigated to coat the nasal cavity and nasopharyngeal mucosa of a cadaveric head for assessment of aerosol and droplet generation from endonasal drilling. A cascade impactor was used to collect aerosols and small droplets ≤14.1 µm based on average aerodynamic diameter, and the collection chambers were visualized under UV light. RESULTS: When vitamin B2 was nebulized, aerosols ≤5.4 µm were generated and the collected particles were fluorescent. When fluorescein and the commercial water tracer dye were nebulized, aerosols ≤8.61 µm and ≤2.08 µm respectively were generated, but the collected aerosols did not appear visibly fluorescent. Endonasal drilling in the nasopharynx coated with vitamin B2 irrigation yielded aerosols ≤3.30 µm that were fluorescent under UV light. CONCLUSION: Vitamin B2's reliability as a fluorescent tracer when suspended in aerosols and small droplets ≤14.1 µm and known mucosal safety profile make it an ideal compound compared to fluorescein and commercial water-based fluorescent dyes for use as a safe fluorescent tracer in healthcare contamination models especially with human subjects.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/transmission , Disease Transmission, Infectious , Fluorescent Dyes , Models, Biological , Nasopharynx/surgery , Riboflavin , Aerosols , Cadaver , Endoscopy , Fluorescein , Humans , Models, Anatomic , Nebulizers and Vaporizers , Otolaryngology , Otorhinolaryngologic Surgical Procedures/methods , Particle Size , SARS-CoV-2
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL