Aerosol Exposure During Surgical Tracheotomy in SARS-CoV-2 Positive Patients.

INTRODUCTION: Since December 2019, the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 has been spreading worldwide. Since the main route of infection with SARS-CoV-2 is probably via contact with virus-containing droplets of the exhaled air, any method of securing the airway is of extremely high risk for the health care professionals involved. We evaluated the aerosol exposure to the interventional team during a tracheotomy in a semiquantitative fashion. In addition, we present novel protective measures. PATIENTS AND METHODS: To visualize the air movements occurring during a tracheotomy, we used a breathing simulator filled with artificial fog. Normal breathing and coughing were simulated under surgery. The speed of aerosol propagation and particle density in the direct visual field of the surgeon were evaluated. RESULTS: Laminar air flow (LAF) in the OR reduced significantly the aerosol exposure during tracheostomy. Only 4.8 ±â€Š3.4% of the aerosol was in contact with the surgeon. Without LAF, however, the aerosol density in the inspiratory area of the surgeon is 10 times higher (47.9 ±â€Š10.8%, P < 0.01). Coughing through the opened trachea exposed the surgeon within 400 ms with 76.0 ±â€Š8.0% of the aerosol-independent of the function of the LAF. Only when a blocked tube was inserted into the airway, no aerosol leakage could be detected. DISCUSSION: Coughing and expiration during a surgical tracheotomy expose the surgical team considerably to airway aerosols. This is potentially associated with an increased risk for employees being infected by airborne-transmitted pathogens. Laminar airflow in an operating room leads to a significant reduction in the aerosol exposure of the surgeon and is therefore preferable to a bedside tracheotomy in terms of infection prevention. Ideal protection of medical staff is achieved when the procedure is performed under endotracheal intubation and muscle relaxation.

Typical symptoms of common otorhinolaryngological diseases may mask a SARS-CoV-2 infection.

PURPOSE: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus type 2 (SARS-CoV-2) replicates predominantly in the upper respiratory tract and is primarily transmitted by droplets and aerosols. Taking the medical history for typical COVID-19 symptoms and PCR-based SARS-CoV-2 testing have become established as screening procedures. The aim of this work was to describe the clinical appearance of SARS-CoV-2-PCR positive patients and to determine the SARS-CoV-2 contact risk for health care workers (HCW). METHODS: The retrospective study included n = 2283 SARS-CoV-2 PCR tests from n = 1725 patients with otorhinolaryngological (ORL) diseases performed from March to November 2020 prior to inpatient treatment. In addition, demographic data and medical history were assessed. RESULTS: n = 13 PCR tests (0.6%) were positive for SARS-CoV-2 RNA. The positive rate showed a significant increase during the observation period (p < 0.01). None of the patients had clinical symptoms that led to a suspected diagnosis of COVID-19 before PCR testing. The patients were either asymptomatic (n = 4) or had symptoms that were interpreted as symptoms typical of the ORL disease or secondary diagnoses (n = 9). CONCLUSION: The identification of SARS-CoV-2-positive patients is a considerable challenge in clinical practice. Our findings illustrate that taking a medical history alone is of limited value and cannot replace molecular SARS-CoV-2 testing, especially for patients with ORL diseases. Our data also demonstrate that there is a high probability of contact with SARS-CoV-2-positive patients in everyday clinical practice, so that the use of personal protective equipment, even in apparently "routine cases", is highly recommended.

In vitro comparison of surgical techniques in times of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic: electrocautery generates more droplets and aerosol than laser surgery or drilling.

INTRODUCTION: Based on current knowledge, the SARS-CoV-2 is transmitted via droplet, aerosols and smear infection. Due to a confirmed high virus load in the upper respiratory tract of COVID-19 patients, there is a potential risk of infection for health care professionals when performing surgical procedures in this area. The aim of this study was the semi-quantitative comparison of ENT-typical interventions in the head and neck area with regard to particle and aerosol generation. These data can potentially contribute to a better risk assessment of aerogenic SARS-CoV-2-transmission caused by medical procedures. MATERIALS AND METHODS: As a model, a test chamber was created to examine various typical surgical interventions on porcine soft and hard tissues. Simultaneously, particle and aerosol release were recorded and semi-quantitatively evaluated time-dependently. Five typical surgical intervention techniques (mechanical stress with a passive instrument with and without suction, CO2 laser treatment, drilling and bipolar electrocoagulation) were examined and compared regarding resulting particle release. RESULTS: Neither aerosols nor particles could be detected during mechanical manipulation with and without suction. The use of laser technique showed considerable formation of aerosol. During drilling, mainly solid tissue particles were scattered into the environment (18.2 ± 15.7 particles/cm2/min). The strongest particle release was determined during electrocoagulation (77.2 ± 30.4 particles/cm2/min). The difference in particle release between electrocoagulation and drilling was significant (p < 0.05), while particle diameter was comparable. In addition, relevant amounts of aerosol were released during electrocoagulation (79.6% of the maximum flue gas emission during laser treatment). DISCUSSION: Our results demonstrated clear differences comparing surgical model interventions. In contrast to sole mechanical stress with passive instruments, all active instruments (laser, drilling and electrocoagulation) released particles and aerosols. Assuming that particle and aerosol exposure is clinically correlated to the risk of SARS-CoV-2-transmission from the patient to the physician, a potential risk for health care professionals for infection cannot be excluded. Especially electrocautery is frequently used for emergency treatment, e.g., nose bleeding. The use of this technique may, therefore, be considered particularly critical in potentially infectious patients. Alternative methods may be given preference and personal protective equipment should be used consequently.