Development of protective equipment for endoscopic treatment and surgery in otorhinolaryngology.

OBJECTIVE: The coronavirus disease pandemic has raised concerns regarding the transmission of infections to healthcare workers. We developed a new protective device to reduce the risk of aerosol diffusion and droplet infection among healthcare workers. Here, we report the results of a theoretical evaluation of the efficacy of this device. METHODS: We used suction-capable masks with and without rubber slits, sleeves for the insertion section of endoscopes and treatment tools, and a cover for the control section of the endoscope. To simulate droplet spread from patients, we created a droplet simulation model and an aerosol simulation model. The results with and without the devices attached and with and without the suction were compared. RESULTS: The droplet simulation model showed a 95% reduction in droplets with masks with rubber slits; furthermore, a reduction of 100% was observed when the insertion sleeve was used. Evaluation of aerosol simulation when suction was applied revealed an aerosol reduction of 98% and >99% with the use of the mask without rubber slits and with the combined use of the mask and insertion sleeve, respectively. The elimination of droplet emission upon instrument removal confirmed that the instrument sleeve prevented the diffusion of droplets. The elimination of droplets upon repeated pressing of the suction button confirmed that the cover prevented the diffusion of droplets. CONCLUSION: We developed a device for infection control, in collaboration with a gastrointestinal endoscopist and Olympus Medical Systems Corporation, that was effective in reducing droplet and aerosol diffusion in this initial theoretical assessment.

Shielding device for endoscopic procedures during lower gastrointestinal endoscopy

Objectives The coronavirus pandemic significantly impacted endoscopic practice. During lower gastrointestinal endoscopy, infectious substances disseminate;therefore, we developed an infection control device (STEP‐L) for lower gastrointestinal endoscopy and examined its usefulness. Methods STEP‐L wraps around the patient's buttocks and covers the endoscope. Using lower endoscopy training models, three endoscopists performed 18 colonoscopies with STEP‐L (group S) and without (group C). Endoscopic insertion time and pigmented areas of ​​gloves and diapers after the examination were compared between both groups. Results Insertion of the endoscope up to the cecum was possible in all 18 examinations. The insertion time to the cecum was 52.4 ± 19.0 s in group S and 53.9 ± 13.3 s in group C. The pigmented areas of the ​​gloves measured 39,108.0 ± 16,155.3 pixels in group C, but were significantly reduced to 2610.5 ± 4333.8 pixels in group S (p < 0.05). The pigmented areas of the diapers measured 2280.9 ± 3285.2 pixels in group C, but were significantly reduced to 138.0 ± 82.9 pixels in group S (p < 0.05). Conclusions Using STEP‐L does not change the insertion time, and is technically feasible. STEP‐L significantly reduces the adhesion of virtual pollutants to the surroundings, suggesting that this device is useful for infection control during lower gastrointestinal endoscopy.

Possibility of new shielding device for upper gastrointestinal endoscopy.

Background and study aims Infection control is essential when performing endoscopic procedures, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic. Therefore, we have developed a new shielding device called STEP for infection control in upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. Patients and methods STEP consists of a mask worn by the patient and a drape that is connected to the mask and covers the endoscope. A suction tube attached to the mask prevents aerosols from spreading. The endoscopist operates the endoscope through the drape. Three endoscopists performed a total of 18 examinations using an upper endoscopy training model with and without STEP. Endoscopic images were evaluated by three other endoscopists, using a visual analog scale. We also simulated contact, droplet, and aerosol infection and evaluated the utility of STEP. Results All examinations were conducted without a problem. Mean procedure time was 126.3 ±â€Š11.6 seconds with STEP and 122.3 ±â€Š10.0 seconds without STEP. The mean visual analog score was 90.7 ±â€Š10.1 with STEP and 90.4 ±â€Š10.0 without STEP. In the contact model, adherence of simulated contaminants was 4.9 ±â€Š1.4 % without STEP and 0 % with STEP. In the droplet model, the number of simulated contaminants attached to the paper was 338 273 ±â€Š90 735 pixels without STEP and 0 with STEP. In the aerosol model, the total number of particles was 346 837 ±â€Š9485 without STEP and was significantly reduced to 222 ±â€Š174 with STEP. Conclusions No effect on examination time or endoscopic image quality was observed when using STEP in upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. Using STEP reduced the diffusion of simulated contaminants in all three infection models.