Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 27
Filter
1.
Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol ; : 34894221118186, 2022 Aug 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-20240260

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Anosmia and hyposmia significantly affect patients' quality of life and have many etiologies, including trauma, inflammatory conditions including chronic rhinosinusitis, neoplasm, and viral infections, such as rhinovirus and SARS-CoV-2. OBJECTIVE: Our purpose was to establish whether a consensus exists regarding optimal management of olfactory dysfunction and to provide insight into the treatment of anosmia in the current climate of increased prevalence secondary to COVID-19. Thus, we aimed to systematically review the literature on the management of non-Chronic-rhinosinusitis- related anosmia/hyposmia. METHODS: PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases were searched for articles published since January 1990 using terms combined with Medical Subject Headings (MeSH). We included articles evaluating management of anosmia and hyposmia written in the English language, with original data, a minimum of 3 months of follow-up except for COVID-related studies, at least 2 patients, and well-defined and measurable outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 3013 unique titles were returned upon the initial search. Of these, 297 abstracts were examined, yielding 19 full texts meeting inclusion criteria (8 with level 1 evidence, 3 with level 2, 1 with level 3, and 7 with level 4). The studies included a total of 1522 subjects, with follow up ranging from 3 to 72 months, with an exception for COVID related studies. Endpoints were based on clinically significant improvements of olfactory functions as measured through validated smell tests. Treatments with the most robust data were intranasal corticosteroids and olfactory training. CONCLUSION: The literature on the treatment of anosmia and hyposmia includes randomized trials showing the efficacy of a few modalities. While further research is needed to expand therapeutic options for this debilitating condition, the current literature supports the use of olfactory training and topical corticosteroids.

2.
Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol ; : 34894221082739, 2022 Mar 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2227432

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To determine provider and patient attitudes toward telemedicine in Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery (OHNS). METHODS: Otolaryngology practitioners conducting outpatient clinics at an academic tertiary referral center were provided with a pre-Study Provider Perception Questionnaire (pre-PPQ) designed to evaluate pre-study perception of telemedicine in otolaryngology. A post-study Provider Perception Questionnaire (post-PPQ) designed to evaluate elements similar to those constituting the PrePPQ was completed at 6 weeks. Additionally, following each visit, providers and patients completed Individual Encounter Survey Questionnaires (IESQ) to evaluate the virtual clinical encounter experience. RESULTS: The pre-PPQ was completed by 29 providers, while the post-PPQ was completed by 12 providers. A total of 236 post-visit provider IESQs were completed, of which 208 were deemed successful. Audio/visual (AV) difficulties and limited server connectivity for the patient were most common causes for unsuccessful encounters. Providers reported that the most appropriate use of telemedicine, on both pre-PPQ and post-PPQ, was triaging patients to determine the need for in-person visits. The inability to perform a physical exam was rated as the primary barrier to telemedicine in OHNS on both pre-PPQ and post-PPQ. Patients strongly agreed with the statements, "My healthcare provider was able to understand my healthcare condition" and, "I felt comfortable communicating with my healthcare provider" 92.0% and 95.4% of the time, respectively. CONCLUSION: Both providers and patients demonstrated an overall positive attitude toward the use of telemedicine in the provision of otolaryngologic care.

3.
JMIR Public Health Surveill ; 7(1): e24220, 2021 01 14.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2141289

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Real-time polymerase chain reaction using nasopharyngeal swabs is currently the most widely used diagnostic test for SARS-CoV-2 detection. However, false negatives and the sensitivity of this mode of testing have posed challenges in the accurate estimation of the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection rates. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether technical and, therefore, correctable errors were being made with regard to nasopharyngeal swab procedures. METHODS: We searched a web-based video database (YouTube) for videos demonstrating SARS-CoV-2 nasopharyngeal swab tests, posted from January 1 to May 15, 2020. Videos were rated by 3 blinded rhinologists for accuracy of swab angle and depth. The overall score for swab angle and swab depth for each nasopharyngeal swab demonstration video was determined based on the majority score with agreement between at least 2 of the 3 reviewers. We then comparatively evaluated video data collected from YouTube videos demonstrating the correct nasopharyngeal swab technique with data from videos demonstrating an incorrect nasopharyngeal swab technique. Multiple linear regression analysis with statistical significance set at P=.05 was performed to determine video data variables associated with the correct nasopharyngeal swab technique. RESULTS: In all, 126 videos met the study inclusion and exclusion criteria. Of these, 52.3% (66/126) of all videos demonstrated the correct swab angle, and 46% (58/126) of the videos demonstrated an appropriate swab depth. Moreover, 45.2% (57/126) of the videos demonstrated both correct nasopharyngeal swab angle and appropriate depth, whereas 46.8% (59/126) of the videos demonstrated both incorrect nasopharyngeal swab angle and inappropriate depth. Videos with correct nasopharyngeal swab technique were associated with the swab operators identifying themselves as a medical professional or as an Ear, Nose, Throat-related medical professional. We also found an association between correct nasopharyngeal swab techniques and recency of video publication date (relative to May 15, 2020). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings show that over half of the videos documenting the nasopharyngeal swab test showed an incorrect technique, which could elevate false-negative test rates. Therefore, greater attention needs to be provided toward educating frontline health care workers who routinely perform nasopharyngeal swab procedures.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Testing/methods , Nasopharynx/virology , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Social Media , Specimen Handling/methods , Video Recording , Diagnostic Errors/prevention & control , Humans , Real-Time Polymerase Chain Reaction
4.
Facial Plast Surg Aesthet Med ; 2021 Dec 29.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1577516

ABSTRACT

Introduction: The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic has led to concerns over transmission risk from head and neck operations including facial cosmetic surgeries. Objectives: To quantify droplet and aerosol generation from rhinoplasty techniques in a human anatomic specimen model using fluorescein staining and an optical particle sizer. Methods: Noses of human anatomic specimens were infiltrated using 0.1% fluorescein. Droplets and aerosols were measured during rhinoplasty techniques including opening the skin-soft tissue envelope, monopolar electrocautery, endonasal rasping, endonasal osteotomy, and percutaneous osteotomy. Results: No visible droplet contamination was observed for any rhinoplasty techniques investigated. Compared with the negative control of anterior rhinoscopy, total 0.300-10.000 µm aerosols were increased after monopolar electrocautery (p < 0.001) and endonasal rasp (p = 0.003). Opening the skin-soft tissue envelope, endonasal osteotomies, and percutaneous osteotomies did not generate a detectable increase in aerosols (p > 0.15). Discussion and Conclusions: In this investigation, droplets were not observed under ultraviolet light, and aerosol generation was noted only with cautery and endonasal rasping.

5.
Laryngoscope Investig Otolaryngol ; 6(1): 129-136, 2021 Feb.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1384249

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: The risk of SARS-CoV-2 transmission to healthcare workers through airborne aerosolization during otologic surgery has not been characterized. The objective of this study was to describe and quantify the aerosol generation during common otologic procedures in both cadaveric surgical simulation and live patient surgery. METHODS: The number concentrations of generated aerosols in the particle size range of 0.30 to 10.0 µm were quantified using an optical particle sizer during both a cadaveric simulation of routine otologic procedures as well as cochlear implant surgery on live patients in the operating room. RESULTS: In the cadaveric simulation, temporalis fascia graft harvest using cold techniques (without electrocautery) (n = 4) did not generate aerosols above baseline concentrations. Tympanoplasty (n = 3) and mastoidectomy (n = 3) both produced statistically significant increases in concentrations of aerosols (P < 0.05), predominantly submicron particles (< 1.0 µm). High-speed, powered drilling of the temporal bone during mastoidectomy with a Multi Flute cutting burr resulted in higher peak concentrations and greater number of spikes in aerosols than with a diamond burr. In the operating room, spikes in aerosols occurred during both cochlear implant surgeries. CONCLUSION: In the cadaveric simulation, temporalis fascia graft harvest without electrocautery did not generate aerosol levels above baseline, while significant aerosol levels were generated during mastoidectomy and to a much less degree during tympanoplasty. Aerosol spikes were appreciated during cochlear implantation surgery in live patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2.

7.
Adv Exp Med Biol ; 1327: 169-189, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1316247

ABSTRACT

With the largest viral loads in both symptomatic and asymptomatic patients with Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) present in the oral and nasal cavities, agents that act on these two areas have the potential for large therapeutic and prophylactic benefit. A literature review was conducted to elucidate the possible agents useful in treatment of SARS-CoV-2. These agents were evaluated for their current applications, adverse reactions, their current state of study, and any future considerations in their management of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-2019). Our review has found that, while there are many promising agents with proven efficacy in their in-vitro efficacy against SARS-CoV-2, more clinical trials and in-vivo studies, as well as safety trials, must be conducted before these agents can be effectively implemented.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Antiviral Agents/therapeutic use , Humans , SARS-CoV-2 , Viral Load
8.
Cancers (Basel) ; 13(14)2021 Jul 16.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1314586

ABSTRACT

Emergency approval of vaccines against COVID-19 provides an opportunity for us to return to pre-pandemic oncology care. However, safety data in cancer patients is lacking due to their exclusion from most phase III trials. We included all patients aged less than 65 years who received a COVID-19 vaccine from 8 December 2020 to 28 February 2021 at our London tertiary oncology centre. Solicited and unsolicited vaccine-related adverse events (VRAEs) were collected using telephone or face-to-face consultation. Within the study period, 373 patients received their first dose of vaccine: Pfizer/BioNTech (75.1%), Oxford/AstraZeneca (23.6%), Moderna (0.3%), and unknown (1.1%). Median follow-up was 25 days (5-85). Median age was 56 years (19-65). Of the patients, 94.9% had a solid malignancy and 76.7% were stage 3-4. The most common cancers were breast (34.0%), lung (13.4%), colorectal (10.2%), and gynaecological (10.2%). Of the patients, 88.5% were receiving anti-cancer treatment (36.2% parenteral chemotherapy and 15.3% immunotherapy), 76.1% developed any grade VRAE of which 2.1% were grade 3. No grade 4/5 or anaphylaxis were observed. The most common VRAEs within 7 days post-vaccination were sore arm (61.7%), fatigue (18.2%), and headaches (12.1%). Most common grade 3 VRAE was fatigue (1.1%). Our results demonstrate that COVID-19 vaccines in oncology patients have mild reactogenicity.

9.
Allergy Rhinol (Providence) ; 12: 21526567211026568, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1308087

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Anosmia and hyposmia have many etiologies, including trauma, chronic sinusitis, neoplasms, and respiratory viral infections such as rhinovirus and SARS-CoV-2. We aimed to systematically review the literature on the diagnostic evaluation of anosmia/hyposmia. METHODS: PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases were searched for articles published since January 1990 using terms combined with Medical Subject Headings (MeSH). We included articles evaluating diagnostic modalities for anosmia, written in the English language, used original data, and had two or more patients. RESULTS: A total of 2065 unique titles were returned upon the initial search. Of these, 226 abstracts were examined, yielding 27 full-text articles meeting inclusion criteria (Level of evidence ranging from 1 to 4; most level 2). The studies included a total of 13,577 patients. The most utilized diagnostic tools were orthonasal smell tests (such as the Sniffin' Sticks and the UPSIT, along with validated abridged smell tests). Though various imaging modalities (including MRI and CT) were frequently mentioned in the workup of olfactory dysfunction, routine imaging was not used to primarily diagnose smell loss. CONCLUSION: The literature includes several studies on validity and reliability for various smell tests in diagnosing anosmia. Along with a thorough history and physical, validated orthonasal smell tests should be part of the workup of the patient with suspected olfactory dysfunction. The most widely studied modality was MRI, but criteria for the timing and sequence of imaging modalities was heterogenous.

10.
JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg ; 147(4): 404-405, 2021 04 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1118073
11.
Am J Otolaryngol ; 42(4): 102970, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1103683

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: The highly contagious COVID-19 has resulted in millions of deaths worldwide. Physicians performing orbital procedures may be at increased risk of occupational exposure to the virus due to exposure to secretions. The goal of this study is to measure the droplet and aerosol production during repair of the inferior orbital rim and trial a smoke-evacuating electrocautery handpiece as a mitigation device. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The inferior rim of 6 cadaveric orbits was approached transconjunctivally using either standard or smoke-evacuator electrocautery and plated using a high-speed drill. Following fluorescein inoculation, droplet generation was measured by counting under ultraviolet-A (UV-A) light against a blue background. Aerosol generation from 0.300-10.000 µm was measured using an optical particle sizer. Droplet and aerosol generation was compared against retraction of the orbital soft tissue as a negative control. RESULTS: No droplets were observed following the orbital approach using electrocautery. Visible droplets were observed after plating with a high-speed drill for 3 of 6 orbits. Total aerosol generation was significantly higher than negative control following the use of standard electrocautery. Use of smoke-evacuator electrocautery was associated with significantly lower aerosol generation in 2 of 3 size groups and in total. There was no significant increase in total aerosols associated with high-speed drilling. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Droplet generation for orbital repair was present only following plating with high-speed drill. Aerosol generation during standard electrocautery was significantly reduced using a smoke-evacuating electrocautery handpiece. Aerosols were not significantly increased by high-speed drilling.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/transmission , Electrocoagulation/adverse effects , Infectious Disease Transmission, Patient-to-Professional , Occupational Exposure/adverse effects , Orbit/surgery , SARS-CoV-2/pathogenicity , Aerosols , COVID-19/prevention & control , Cadaver , Humans , Risk Assessment
12.
Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg ; 165(4): 532-535, 2021 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1072876

ABSTRACT

The risk of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) transmission to health care workers during myringotomy and tympanostomy tube (MT) insertion is unknown. To determine the need for enhanced precautions to prevent potential spread via aerosolized particles, we used an optical particle sizer to measure aerosol generation intraoperatively during a case series of MT insertion. We also discuss our institutional experience with safe pandemic-era perioperative practices. There was no measured increase in aerosol particle number during the procedure at a distance of 30 cm from the external auditory canal. These initial data are reassuring regarding the risk of SARS-CoV-2 transmission to the operating room team due to aerosol generation, but further study is necessary before making definitive recommendations.


Subject(s)
Aerosols , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19/transmission , Infection Control/organization & administration , Infectious Disease Transmission, Patient-to-Professional/prevention & control , Middle Ear Ventilation/adverse effects , COVID-19/epidemiology , Child , Humans , Operative Time
13.
Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg ; 163(6): 1137-1139, 2020 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1044140

ABSTRACT

As the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic continues to evolve through the United States and other countries, differing rates of progression and decline are occurring based on varied population densities. While some health systems are reaching a steady state of new patient cases, others are seeing a leveling off or decline, allowing for restoration of normal practices. This "reverse-surge" planning and implementation process is a colossal undertaking for health systems trying to reacquire patient access and financial stability while preserving necessary resources and maintaining precautions for another potential surge. For the otolaryngologist, reverse-surge planning involves additional workflow adjustments in the outpatient and operating room settings given the abundance of COVID-19 virus in the upper aerodigestive tract. As the reverse-surge best practices are still under development, open communication between otolaryngology colleagues and health system leadership is paramount to optimize efficiency and maintain an adequate measure of safety for patients and our health care teams.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/prevention & control , Disease Transmission, Infectious/prevention & control , Infection Control/methods , Otolaryngology/methods , Pandemics , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/transmission , COVID-19 Testing , Health Personnel , Humans , Interdisciplinary Communication , Otolaryngologists , Personal Protective Equipment , United States
14.
Laryngoscope Investig Otolaryngol ; 6(1): 49-57, 2021 Feb.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1044105

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: Cadaveric simulations have shown endonasal drilling and cautery generate aerosols, which is a significant concern for otolaryngologists during the COVID-19 era. This study quantifies aerosol generation during routine rhinologic surgeries and in-office procedures in live patients. METHODS: Aerosols ranging from 0.30 to 10.0 µm were measured in real-time using an optical particle sizer during surgeries and in-office procedures. Various mask conditions were tested during rigid nasal endoscopy (RNE) and postoperative debridement (POD). RESULTS: Higher aerosol concentrations (AC) ranging from 2.69 to 10.0 µm were measured during RNE (n = 9) with no mask vs two mask conditions (P = .002 and P = .017). Mean AC (0.30-10.0 µm) were significantly higher during POD (n = 9) for no mask vs a mask covering the patient's mouth condition (mean difference = 0.16 ± 0.03 particles/cm3, 95% CI 0.10-0.22, P < .001). There were no discernible spikes in aerosol levels during endoscopic septoplasty (n = 3). Aerosol spikes were measured in two of three functional endoscopic sinus surgeries (FESS) with microdebrider. Using suction mitigation, there were no discernible spikes during powered drilling in two anterior skull base surgeries (ASBS). CONCLUSION: Use of a surgical mask over the patient's mouth during in-office procedures or a mask with a slit for an endoscope during RNE significantly diminished aerosol generation. However, whether this reduction in aerosol generation is sufficient to prevent transmission of communicable diseases via aerosols was beyond the scope of this study. There were several spikes in aerosols during FESS and ASBS, though none were associated with endonasal drilling with the use of suction mitigation. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4.

15.
Int Forum Allergy Rhinol ; 11(5): 957-960, 2021 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-880116
16.
Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg ; 163(4): 682-694, 2020 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-999410

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To provide a state of the art review of intranasal antiviral drug delivery and to discuss current applications, adverse reactions, and future considerations in the management of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Embase, and Clinicaltrials.gov search engines. REVIEW METHODS: A structured search of the current literature was performed of dates up to and including April 2020. Search terms were queried as related to topics of antiviral agents and intranasal applications. A series of video conferences was convened among experts in otolaryngology, infectious diseases, public health, pharmacology, and virology to review the literature and discuss relevant findings. CONCLUSIONS: Intranasal drug delivery for antiviral agents has been studied for many years. Several agents have broad-spectrum antiviral activity, but they still require human safety and efficacy trials prior to implementation. Intranasal drug delivery has potential relevance for future clinical trials in the settings of disease spread prevention and treatment of SARS-CoV-2 and other viral diseases. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Intranasal drug delivery represents an important area of research for COVID-19 and other viral diseases. The consideration of any potential adverse reactions is paramount.


Subject(s)
Antiviral Agents/administration & dosage , Betacoronavirus , Coronavirus Infections/drug therapy , Pneumonia, Viral/drug therapy , Administration, Intranasal/methods , COVID-19 , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Drug Delivery Systems , Humans , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , SARS-CoV-2
17.
Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol ; 130(7): 810-817, 2021 Jul.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-949219

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To compare the patient experience of a virtual otolaryngology clinic visit to an in-person visit, especially with its significantly increased implementation during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: Patient satisfaction (PS) metrics from the Clinician and Group Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems survey were queried from March 1, 2020 to May 1, 2020 for telehealth visits and January 1, 2020 to March 1, 2020 for in-person visits. Overlapping and comparable questions were analyzed using Mann-Whitney U test, Chi-square test for independence, and Student's t-test. RESULTS: There were 1284 partial or complete PS surveys from in-person visits and 221 partial or complete virtual PS surveys. There were statistically significantly worse virtual visit evaluations of provider listening, conveyance of information, likelihood to recommend, and overall provider ratings compared to in-person visits. CONCLUSION: Telehealth has become the new norm for most healthcare providers in the United States. This study demonstrates some of the initial shortcomings of telehealth in an otolaryngology practice and identifies challenges with interpersonal communication that may need to be addressed as telehealth becomes increasingly prevalent. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Otolaryngology/organization & administration , Pandemics , Patient Satisfaction , Remote Consultation , Ambulatory Care , California/epidemiology , Communication , Health Care Surveys , Humans , Physician-Patient Relations , SARS-CoV-2
18.
OTO Open ; 4(4): 2473974X20970176, 2020.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-939961

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: The symptoms and long-term sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection have yet to be determined, and evaluating possible early signs is critical to determine which patients should be tested and treated. The objective of this ongoing study is to evaluate initial and short-term rhinologic symptoms, olfactory ability, and general quality of life in patients undergoing SARS-CoV-2 testing. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective case-control. SETTING: Academic institute. METHODS: Adult patients tested for SARS-CoV-2 were prospectively enrolled and separated into positive and negative groups. Each participant completed 4 validated patient-reported outcome measures. The UPSIT (University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test) was distributed to patients who were SARS-CoV-2 positive. RESULTS: The positive group reported significantly decreased sense of smell and taste on the 22-item Sinonasal Outcome Test (SNOT-22) as compared with the negative group (mean ± SD: 3.4 ± 1.7 vs 1.2 ± 1.4, P < .001). The positive group had a much higher probability of reporting a decrease in smell/taste as "severe" or "as bad as it can be" (63.3% vs 5.8%) with an odds ratio of 27.6 (95% CI, 5.9-128.8). There were no differences between groups for overall SNOT-22 domain scores, PHQ-4 depression/anxiety (Patient Health Questionnaire-4), and 5-Level EQ-5D quality-of-life scores. Mean Self-MOQ (Self-reported Mini Olfactory Questionnaire) scores were 7.0 ± 5.6 for the positive group and 1.8 ± 4.0 for the negative group (P < .001). The mean UPSIT score was 28.8 ± 7.2 in the positive group. CONCLUSION: Symptomatic patients who are SARS-CoV-2 positive report severe olfactory and gustatory dysfunction via the Self-MOQ and SNOT-22 as compared with symptomatic patients testing negative.

19.
Am J Otolaryngol ; 42(1): 102829, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-909337

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: The COVID-19 pandemic has led to concerns over transmission risk from healthcare procedures, especially when operating in the head and neck such as during surgical repair of facial fractures. This study aims to quantify aerosol and droplet generation from mandibular and midface open fixation and measure mitigation of airborne particles by a smoke evacuating electrocautery hand piece. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The soft tissue of the bilateral mandible and midface of two fresh frozen cadaveric specimens was infiltrated using a 0.1% fluorescein solution. Surgical fixation via oral vestibular approach was performed on each of these sites. Droplet splatter on the surgeon's chest, facemask, and up to 198.12 cm (6.5 ft) away from each surgical site was measured against a blue background under ultraviolet-A (UV-A) light. Aerosol generation was measured using an optical particle sizer. RESULTS: No visible droplet contamination was observed for any trials of mandible or midface fixation. Total aerosolized particle counts from 0.300-10.000 µm were increased compared to baseline following each use of standard electrocautery (n = 4, p < 0.001) but not with use of a suction evacuating electrocautery hand piece (n = 4, p = 0.103). Total particle counts were also increased during use of the powered drill (n = 8, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Risk from visible droplets during mandible and midface fixation is low. However, significant increases in aerosolized particles were measured after electrocautery use and during powered drilling. Aerosol dispersion is significantly decreased with the use of a smoke evacuating electrocautery hand piece.


Subject(s)
Aerosols/adverse effects , COVID-19/transmission , Disease Transmission, Infectious/statistics & numerical data , Intraoperative Period , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2 , COVID-19/epidemiology , Humans , Mandible , United States/epidemiology
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL