How deep do you go? Clinical prediction of nasopharyngeal depth based on facial measurements.

Nasopharyngeal depth (ND) prediction is clinically relevant in performing medical procedures, and in enhancing technique accuracy and patient safety. Nonetheless, clinical predictive variables and normative data in adults remain limited. This study aimed to determine normative data on ND and its correlation to external facial measurements. A multicenter cross-sectional study obtained data from adults presenting to otolaryngology clinics at five sites in Canada, Italy, and Spain. Investigators compared endoscopically measured depth from the nasal sill (soft tissue between the nasal ala and columella) to nasopharynx along the nasal floor to the "curved distance from the alar-facial groove along the face to the tragus" and "distance from the tragus to a plane perpendicular to the philtrum." When sinus computed tomography images were available, the distance from the nasopharynx to the nasal sill was also collected. 371 patients participated in the study (41% women; 51 years old, SD 18). Average ND was 9.4 cm (SD 0.86) and 10.1 cm (SD 0.9) for women and men, respectively (p < 0.001; 95% CI 0.46-0.86). Perpendicular distance was strongly correlated to ND (r = 0.775; p < 0.001), with an average underestimation of 0.1 cm (SD 0.65; 95% CI 0.06-0.2). The equation: ND (cm) = perpendicular distance*0.773 + 2.344, generated from 271 randomly selected participants, and validated on 100 participants, resulted in a 0.03 cm prediction error (SD 0.61; 95% CI -0.08-0.16). Nasopharyngeal depth can be approximated by the distance from the tragus to a plane perpendicular to the philtrum.

Improving Nasopharyngeal Swab Technique via Simulation for Frontline Workers.

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: Nasopharyngeal swabs currently remain the gold standard for COVID-19 sample collection. A surge in testing volume has resulted in a large number of health care workers who are unfamiliar with nasal anatomy performing this test, which can lead to improper collection practices culminating in false-negative results and complications. Therefore, we aimed to assess the accuracy and educational potential of a realistic 3D-printed nasal swab simulator to expedite health care workers' skill acquisition. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective pre-post interventional study. METHODS: A nasal swab task trainer (NSTT) was developed to scale from computed tomography data with a deviated septum. Frontline workers at COVID-19 testing sites in Ontario, Canada, were recruited to use the NSTT for nasopharyngeal swab training. Integrated video recording capability allowed participants to self-evaluate procedure accuracy. A five-point Likert scale was collected regarding the NSTT's educational value and procedural fidelity. RESULTS: Sixty-two frontline workers included in the study were primarily registered nurses (52%) or paramedics (16%). Following simulator use, self-assessed accuracy improved in 77% of all participants and 100% of participants who expressed low confidence before training. Ninety-four percent reported that the NSTT provided a complete educational experience, and 82% regarded the system as a more effective training approach than what is currently available. Eighty-one indicated that the simulator should be used at all COVID-19 testing sites, with 77% stating province-wide implementation was warranted. CONCLUSIONS: The nasal swab task trainer is an effective educational tool that appears well-suited for improved skill acquisition in COVID-19 testing and may be useful for training other nasal swab applications. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3 Laryngoscope, 2022.

Telemedicine as an environmental ally - The social, financial, and environmental impact of virtual care in the otolaryngology clinic.

PURPOSE: Synchronous virtual care rapidly expanded worldwide amid the COVID-19 pandemic to provide remote medical assessment, minimizing contact and disease transmission risk. Despite its benefits, such an abrupt expansion has shed light on the need to address patients' level of satisfaction with this service delivery. The purpose of this study was to investigate patients' satisfaction, travel cost, productivity loss, and CO2 emissions involved with synchronous virtual care and in-person assessments in rhinology and sleep apnea clinics. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This prospective comparative study included patients managed via virtual care, or in-person clinic visit at St. Joseph Hospital, London, Canada, from December/2020 to April/2021, with rhinology pathologies or sleep apnoea. Patient satisfaction questionnaire (PSQ-18) scores were assessed. The overall scores of respondents were recorded including cost implications. RESULTS: A total of 329 patients were invited, 28.5 % responded (n = 93). 33 virtual care (age 48 ± 6), and 60 in-person (age 51 ± 19). There was no statistical significance in PSQ-18 scores. However, under a diagnosis-based subgroup analysis, allergic rhinitis patients on virtual care presented a significantly lower PSQ-18 scores on the general satisfaction (3.28 vs. 4.25, p = 0.04). The time spent with the doctor was directly correlated with age for patients seen in-person (r = 0.27; p = 0.037). The estimated loss of productivity for the Virtual care group was CAD 12, patients assessed in-person presented an average loss of productivity about six times higher (CAD 74 ± 40). CONCLUSIONS: Overall patients' satisfaction did not depend on whether they were seen virtually or in-person. However, time spent with the doctor contributed to higher satisfaction levels, but only among older patients who were seen in person. Nonetheless, allergic rhinitis patients seemed less satisfied with the virtual care option. Virtual care demonstrates economic benefits.

Follow-up of a national web-based survey on the SARS-CoV-2 infectious state of otorhinolaryngologists in Germany.

PURPOSE: The SARS-CoV­2 pandemic has affected the health and practice of otorhinolaryngologists (ORLs) for over 1 year. Follow-up data of a national survey with German ORLs were evaluated regarding differences between the two waves of the pandemic. METHODS: As in the initial survey, German ORLs were addressed via e­mail through the German Society of ORL, Head and Neck Surgery and the German ENT Association. All ORLs afflicted with SARS-CoV­2 were invited to participate in a web-based survey. General data on infections and concomitant parameters were evaluated. RESULTS: Since the start of the pandemic, 129 ORLs reported testing positive for SARS-CoV­2 in Germany. The ORLs infected during the first wave had a relative risk (RR) of 4.07 (95% CI: 3.20; 5.19) of contracting SARS-CoV­2. During the second wave, the RR decreased to 0.35 (95% CI: 0.28; 0.45). The availability of personal protective equipment (PPE) increased from the first to the second wave along with an increased perception of protection in the professional environment. The source of infection shifted from infections via medical staff during the first wave to patients and household exposure during the second wave. Regular medical practice was resumed by clinicians and general practitioners in the second wave. Nevertheless, a proportionally lower infection rate was observed compared with the German population as a whole. CONCLUSION: The data reflect a unique long-term survey of ORLs during the pandemic. Differences in the source of infection were seen between the first and second wave, confirming the need for appropriate PPE for medical professionals working in high-risk environments. Further strategies to reduce the risk of infection include consistent testing for SARS-CoV­2 in healthcare professionals, patients, and the general public as well as vaccination of high-risk medical groups.

Variability in instructions for performance of nasopharyngeal swabs across Canada in the era of COVID-19 - what type of swab is actually being performed?

BACKGROUND: The primary method of surveillance for the presence of SARS-CoV-2 is with nasopharyngeal swabs. Given the significant demand for nasopharyngeal swabs, a large number of previously untrained and unfamiliar staff are now performing this test. It was noted that there was significant heterogeneity in instructions for performing nasopharyngeal swabs in Canada, in contrast to the guidance provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO). The objective of this study was to review the instructions provided across Canada and contrast them to those of the CDC and PAHO. METHODS: A standard series of steps for nasopharyngeal swab performance was outlined based on the CDC, PAHO, and New England Journal of Medicine instructions. A comprehensive search was performed in August 2020 to identify nasopharyngeal swab guidelines provided by public health in the provinces and territories of Canada. Regional health authority guidance was also collected. Instructions provided were contrasted against the standardized steps. RESULTS: Instructions were identified for all provinces and territories, and for 81 regional health authorities. From the provincial and territorial guidelines, 10/13 (77%) cleared the nasal passages before swab insertion, 11/13 (85%) tilted the patient's head back slightly, 12/13 (92%) inserted the swab parallel to the palate, but only 3/13 (23%) inserted the swab to at least a depth of two-thirds the distance between the patient's nose and ear. A clear majority (81%) of regional health authority guidelines followed their respective provincial guidelines. For depth of insertion, Quebec provided a pictogram but no distance or technique for estimation. Six provinces and territories - Northwest Territories, Nunavut, Ontario, Saskatchewan, Prince Edward Island and Alberta - recommended 4 cm or one-half the distance from nostrils to ear. British Columbia and Manitoba recommended a 7 cm depth of insertion. Nova Scotia recommended one-half to two-thirds the distance from nose to ear. Lastly, Newfoundland, New Brunswick and the Yukon recommended an insertion from nose to the external ear canal. CONCLUSION: There is significant heterogeneity in guidance for nasopharyngeal swab performance across Canada. The instructions provided by the majority of provinces and territories in Canada would not be effective in reaching the nasopharynx.

Results of a national web-based survey on the SARS-CoV-2 infectious state of otorhinolaryngologists in Germany.

PURPOSE: SARS-CoV-2 is detected on the mucosa of the upper airways to a high degree. In the course of the COVID-19 pandemic, otorhinolaryngologists (ORL) are assumed to be at high risk due to close contact with the mucosa of the upper airways. No data are yet available providing evidence that ORLs have an increased risk of infection. METHODS: German ORLs were invited via e-mail through the German Society of ORL, Head and Neck Surgery and the German ENT Association to participate in a web-based survey about infection with SARS-CoV-2 and development of COVID-19. Data of infections and concomitant parameters in German ORLs were collected and compared to the total number of infections in Germany. RESULTS: Out of 6383 German ORLs, 970 (15%) participated. 54 ORLs reported testing positive for SARS-CoV-2. Compared to the total population of Germany, ORLs have a relative risk of 3.67 (95% CI 2.82; 4.79) of contracting SARS-CoV-2. Domestic quarantine was conducted in 96.3% of cases. Two individuals were admitted to hospital without intensive care. No casualties were reported. In 31 cases, the source of infection was not identifiable whereas 23 had a clear medical aetiology: infected patients: n = 5, 9.26%; medical staff: n = 13, 14.1%. 9.26% (n = 5) of the identified cases were related to contact to infected family members (n = 3), closer neighbourhood (n = 1) or general public (n = 1). There was no identified increased risk of infection due to performing surgery. CONCLUSION: German ORLs have an almost 3.7-fold risk of contracting SARS-CoV-2 compared to the population baseline level. Appropriate protection appears to be necessary for this occupational group.

International registry of otolaryngologist-head and neck surgeons with COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: It has become clear that healthcare workers are at high risk, and otolaryngology has been theorized to be among the highest risk specialties for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The purpose of this study was to detail the international impact of COVID-19 among otolaryngologists, and to identify instructional cases. METHODS: Country representatives of the Young Otolaryngologists-International Federation of Otolaryngologic Societies (YO-IFOS) surveyed otolaryngologists through various channels. Nationwide surveys were distributed in 19 countries. The gray literature and social media channels were searched to identify reported deaths of otolaryngologists from COVID-19. RESULTS: A total of 361 otolaryngologists were identified to have had COVID-19, and data for 325 surgeons was available for analysis. The age range was 25 to 84 years, with one-half under the age of 44 years. There were 24 deaths in the study period, with 83% over age 55 years. Source of infection was likely clinical activity in 175 (54%) cases. Prolonged exposure to a colleague was the source for 37 (11%) surgeons. Six instructional cases were identified where infections occurred during the performance of aerosol-generating operations (tracheostomy, mastoidectomy, epistaxis control, dacryocystorhinostomy, and translabyrinthine resection). In 3 of these cases, multiple operating room attendees were infected, and in 2, the surgeon succumbed to complications of COVID-19. CONCLUSION: The etiology of reported cases within the otolaryngology community appear to stem equally from clinical activity and community spread. Multiple procedures performed by otolaryngologists are aerosol-generating procedures (AGPs) and great care should be taken to protect the surgical team before, during, and after these operations.

Sinus and anterior skull base surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic: systematic review, synthesis and YO-IFOS position.

PURPOSE: The COVID-19 pandemic has caused significant confusion about healthcare providers' and patients' pandemic-specific risks related to surgery. The aim of this systematic review is to summarize recommendations for sinus and anterior skull base surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: PubMed/MEDLINE, Google Scholar, Scopus and Embase were searched by two independent otolaryngologists from the Young Otolaryngologists of IFOS (YO-IFOS) for studies dealing with sinus and skull base surgery during COVID-19 pandemic. The review also included unpublished guidelines edited by Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery or Neurosurgery societies. Perioperative factors were investigated including surgical indications, preoperative testing of patients, practical management in operating rooms, technical aspects of surgery and postoperative management. The literature review was performed according to PRISMA guidelines. The criteria for considering studies or guidelines for the review were based on the population, intervention, comparison, outcome, timing and setting (PICOTS) framework. RESULTS: 15 International publications met inclusion criteria. Five references were guidelines from national societies. All guidelines recommended postponing elective surgeries. An algorithm is proposed that classifies endonasal surgical procedures into three groups based on the risk of postponing surgery. Patients' COVID-19 status should be preoperatively assessed. Highest level of personal protective equipment (PPE) is recommended, and the use of high-speed powered devices should be avoided. Face-to-face postoperative visits must be limited. CONCLUSIONS: Sinus and skull base surgeries are high-risk procedures due to potential aerosolization of SARS-CoV-2 virus. Protection of health care workers by decreasing exposure and optimizing the use of PPE is essential with sinus and anterior skull base surgery.