Protective masks during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic: Any relationship with temporomandibular disorders and orofacial pain?

BACKGROUND: Wearing protective face masks has been one of the indispensable measures to prevent droplets and aerosol particles transmission during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. OBJECTIVES: This observational cross-sectional survey investigated the different types and modalities of protective mask wearing and the possible association with referred signs of temporomandibular disorders and orofacial pain by respondents. METHODS: An online questionnaire was developed, calibrated and administered anonymously to subjects with an age of ≥18 years. It consisted of different sections: demographics, type and wearing modalities of the protective masks, pain in the preauricular area, noise at the temporomandibular joints and headache. Statistical analysis was performed using statistical software STATA. RESULTS: The questionnaire received 665 replies mainly from participants aged between 18 and 30 years (315 males and 350 females). The healthcare professionals were 37% of participants, 21.2% of them were dentists. The Filtering Facepiece 2 or 3 (FFP2/FFP3) mask was used by 334 subjects (50.3%), and 578 (87%) wore the mask with two elastics behind the ears. Pain while wearing the mask was referred by 400 participants, and 36.8% of them referred pain with a consecutive use of more than 4 h (p = .042). 92.2% of participants did not report any preauricular noise. Headache associated with the FFP2/FFP3 was referred by 57.7% of subjects (p = .033). CONCLUSION: This survey highlighted the increased referred the presence of discomfort in the preauricular area and headache possibly associated with a prolonged use of protective face masks for more than 4 h during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.

FFP3 Feelings and Clinical Experience (FaCE). Facial pressure injuries in healthcare workers from FFP3 masks during the COVID-19 pandemic.

AIMS: Prolonged wear of filtering facepiece 3 (FFP3) masks during the COVID-19 pandemic has led to dermatoses, including pressure sores. This study aimed to better understand the local scale and nature of the problem, coping strategies, and impact on those affected. METHODS: A survey was designed by plastic surgeons, tissue viability nurses, and critical care doctors. Key elements were demographics, mask-wearing behaviours, facial injuries, coping mechanisms, and impacts, such as time off work or redeployment. Question types were multiple-choice questions, visual analogue scales, and blank space. It was distributed for voluntary completion at a London NHS Trust via staff update emails and posters. RESULTS: Between 24th April-15th May 2020, 178 surveys were completed in full. Participants were 84% female, 55% worked in ITU, and 48% were nurses. Grade 1 facial pressure injuries were reported by 79% of respondents (n=124). Other significant occupational dermatoses included pain (70%), dry skin (50%), and acne (41%). The cheeks and bridge of nose were most affected. Staff used barrier creams (17%), dressings (17%), and analgesia (10%) to manage facial injuries. Half of those who modified their mask were not re-fit tested. A total of 33% required redeployment to a non-FFP3 area or time off. CONCLUSIONS: FFP3 masks worn beyond the recommended 1 h are associated with facial injuries. When advanced PPE (i.e., powered airflow masks) is unavailable, we must provide targeted skincare support (prevent and manage), modify shift patterns to reduce mask wear intensity, and amend fit test protocols to optimise protection against COVID-19.

Nasal Mucociliary Clearance and Sinonasal Symptoms in Healthcare Professionals Wearing FFP3 Respirators: A Prospective Cross-Sectional Study.

INTRODUCTION: The purpose of the present study was to assess nasal mucociliary clearance (NMC) and sinonasal symptoms of healthcare professionals wearing filtering facepiece-3 (FFP3) respirators. METHODS: This prospective cross-sectional study was conducted at a large tertiary care academic center. Thirty-four healthcare professionals working at a coronavirus disease-19 patient care unit were included in the study. Visual analog scale (VAS) scores of sinonasal symptoms (nasal discharge, postnasal discharge, nasal blockage, hyposmia, facial pain/pressure, facial fullness, headache, fatigue, halitosis, cough) and the NMC times of the participants were assessed immediately before wearing FFP3 respirators and after 4 h of work with FFP3 respirators. RESULTS: The mean age of the participants was 28.82 ± 4.95 (range, 26-31) years. Twenty participants were female and 14 were male. After wearing the FFP3 respirators for 4 h, a statistically significant increase was observed in total VAS scores for all sinonasal symptoms and NMC times (p < 0.001). When the VAS score of each sinonasal symptom was evaluated separately, a statistically significant increase was found for VAS scores of nasal discharge, postnasal discharge, nasal blockage, hyposmia, facial pain/pressure, and facial fullness (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: The present study shows that nasal mucosal functions might be affected significantly after 4 h of using FFP3 respirators. The long-term effects and clinical significance of these short-term changes should be investigated on healthcare professionals in further studies.

Reusable respirators as personal protective equipment in clinical practice : User experience in times of a pandemic.

BACKGROUND: The novel strain of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 is highly contagious; therefore, special emphasis must be given to personal protective equipment for healthcare workers. Reusable elastomeric respirators were previously used in intensive care units (ICU). These respirators include full or half masks and devices modified to accommodate a filter. Although the general comfort of masks used in the ICU has been studied, data comparing multiple types of masks during a pandemic are missing. METHODS: A prospective randomized trial was conducted in an ICU. After standardized training, participants were randomized to use one of three mask types (full, half or snorkelling mask), each fitted with a filter equivalent to a class 3 particle-filtering half mask (FFP3) during one shift. The main outcomes were characteristics of using the mask itself (donning/doffing, quality of seal, cleaning), working conditions with the mask (vision, comfort, perceived safety, communication) and a subjective comparison to single-use FFP2/3 masks. RESULTS: A total of 30 participants were included in the trial, randomized to 10 participants per group. The masks were worn 6.4 (4.5) times (mean SD) for a total duration of 132 (66) min per shift. The tested masks were rated 7 (2.6) (mean SD) in comparison to FFP2/3 on a Likert scale (0: worst, 10: best). Significant differences between the masks were found in respect to comfort (7/4/8), donning (8/7/9), overall rating (8/5/8) and comparison to single-use FFP2/3 masks (9/7/9; full-, half, snorkelling mask). CONCLUSION: Using reusable elastomeric masks is feasible in clinical practice. Full face masks were significantly better in terms of comfort, donning, overall rating and in comparison to single-use FFP2/3 masks.

Large-scale decontamination of disposable FFP2 and FFP3 respirators by hydrogen peroxide vapour, Finland, April to June 2020.

BackgroundThe shortage of FFP2 and FFP3 respirators posed a serious threat to the operation of the healthcare system at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic.AimOur aim was to develop and validate a large-scale facility that uses hydrogen peroxide vapour for the decontamination of used respirators.MethodsA multidisciplinary and multisectoral ad hoc group of experts representing various organisations was assembled to implement the collection and transport of used FFP2 and FFP3 respirators from hospitals covering 86% of the Finnish population. A large-scale decontamination facility using hydrogen peroxide vapour was designed and constructed. Microbiological tests were used to confirm efficacy of hydrogen peroxide vapour decontamination together with a test to assess the effect of decontamination on the filtering efficacy and fit of respirators. Bacterial and fungal growth in stored respirators was determined by standard methods.ResultsLarge-scale hydrogen peroxide vapour decontamination of a range of FFP2 and FFP3 respirator models effectively reduced the recovery of biological indicators: Geobacillus stearothermophilus and Bacillus atrophaeus spores, as well as model virus bacteriophage MS2. The filtering efficacy and facial fit after hydrogen peroxide vapour decontamination were not affected by the process. Microbial growth in the hydrogen peroxide vapour-treated respirators indicated appropriate microbial cleanliness.ConclusionsLarge-scale hydrogen peroxide vapour decontamination was validated. After effective decontamination, no significant changes in the key properties of the respirators were detected. European Union regulations should incorporate a facilitated pathway to allow reuse of appropriately decontaminated respirators in a severe pandemic when unused respirators are not available.

A preliminary evaluation of surgical field contamination risk from surgeon's oro-nasopharyngeal commensal organisms while using reusable FFP3 respirator masks and power hoods with relevance to the COVID 19 pandemic - A pilot study.

In early 2019 in the UK, concern about the risk of COVID-19 transmission to surgeons who operate near to the airway led to wide scale adoption of different masks, including valved types used in industry. It was noted early on that although these masks protect clinicians, they may represent a risk to the patient due to unfiltered air being directed towards them during close contact1 and the National Health Service circulated guidance to that effect2. Subsequently, an increased incidence of surgical site infection (SSI) was noticed, postulated to be due to contamination of the surgical field by microbial particles from valved masks or hoods leading to a National Patient Safety Alert3. A study recommended that a surgical mask be placed over the exhaust valves of these mask types4. We reviewed the literature using the key words surgical masks, power hoods, FFP3 masks and surgical site infection. Most studies showed no reduction in the incidence of SSI with surgical masks5, but some showed an increase6. There were no studies comparing bacterial contamination of the surgical site with different types of masks. A pilot study was designed to evaluate if FFP3 respirators and powerhoods allowed bacterial contamination of the surgical field in comparison with standard surgical masks and no masks. The results appeared to confirm our methodology and suggested that reusable valved FFP3 masks are associated with bacterial dissemination. Subsequent examination of these masks identified a potential mechanism for this bacterial contamination. A larger scale study is needed.

SARS-CoV2 neutralizing activity of ozone on porous and non-porous materials.

The COVID-19 pandemic has generated a major need for non-destructive and environmentally friendly disinfection methods. This work presents the development and testing of a disinfection process based on gaseous ozone for SARS-CoV-2-contaminated porous and non-porous surfaces. A newly developed disinfection chamber was used, equipped with a CeraPlas™ cold plasma generator that produces ozone during plasma ignition. A reduction of more than log 6 of infectious virus could be demonstrated for virus-contaminated cotton and FFP3 face masks as well as glass slides after exposure to 800 ppm ozone for 10-60 min, depending on the material. In contrast to other disinfectants, ozone can be produced quickly and cost-effectively, and its environmentally friendly breakdown product oxygen does not leave harmful residues. Disinfection with ozone could help to overcome delivery difficulties of personal protective equipment by enabling safe reuse with further applications, thereby reducing waste generation, and may allow regular disinfection of personal items with non-porous surfaces.

Efficacy of FFP3 respirators for prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection in healthcare workers.

Background: Respiratory protective equipment recommended in the UK for healthcare workers (HCWs) caring for patients with COVID-19 comprises a fluid-resistant surgical mask (FRSM), except in the context of aerosol generating procedures (AGPs). We previously demonstrated frequent pauci- and asymptomatic severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection HCWs during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK, using a comprehensive PCR-based HCW screening programme (Rivett et al., 2020; Jones et al., 2020). Methods: Here, we use observational data and mathematical modelling to analyse infection rates amongst HCWs working on 'red' (coronavirus disease 2019, COVID-19) and 'green' (non-COVID-19) wards during the second wave of the pandemic, before and after the substitution of filtering face piece 3 (FFP3) respirators for FRSMs. Results: Whilst using FRSMs, HCWs working on red wards faced an approximately 31-fold (and at least fivefold) increased risk of direct, ward-based infection. Conversely, after changing to FFP3 respirators, this risk was significantly reduced (52-100% protection). Conclusions: FFP3 respirators may therefore provide more effective protection than FRSMs for HCWs caring for patients with COVID-19, whether or not AGPs are undertaken. Funding: Wellcome Trust, Medical Research Council, Addenbrooke's Charitable Trust, NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre, NHS Blood and Transfusion, UKRI.

Powered air-purifying respirators used during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic significantly reduce speech perception.

BACKGROUND: Due to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, interventions in the upper airways are considered high-risk procedures for otolaryngologists and their colleagues. The purpose of this study was to evaluate limitations in hearing and communication when using a powered air-purifying respirator (PAPR) system to protect against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus type 2 (SARS-CoV-2) transmission and to assess the benefit of a headset. METHODS: Acoustic properties of the PAPR system were measured using a head and torso simulator. Audiological tests (tone audiometry, Freiburg speech test, Oldenburg sentence test (OLSA)) were performed in normal-hearing subjects (n = 10) to assess hearing with PAPR. The audiological test setup also included simulation of conditions in which the target speaker used either a PAPR, a filtering face piece (FFP) 3 respirator, or a surgical face mask. RESULTS: Audiological measurements revealed that sound insulation by the PAPR headtop and noise, generated by the blower-assisted respiratory protection system, resulted in significantly deteriorated hearing thresholds (4.0 ± 7.2 dB hearing level (HL) vs. 49.2 ± 11.0 dB HL, p < 0.001) and speech recognition scores in quiet (100.0 ± 0.0% vs. 2.5 ± 4.2%, p < 0.001; OLSA: 20.8 ± 1.8 dB vs. 61.0 ± 3.3 dB SPL, p < 0.001) when compared to hearing without PAPR. Hearing with PAPR was significantly improved when the subjects were equipped with an in-ear headset (p < 0.001). Sound attenuation by FFP3 respirators and surgical face masks had no clinically relevant impact on speech perception. CONCLUSIONS: The PAPR system evaluated here can be considered for high-risk procedures in SARS-CoV-2-positive patients, provided that hearing and communication of the surgical team are optimized by the additional use of a headset.

Healthcare Workers' Experiences and Views of Using Surgical Masks and Respirators, and Their Attitudes on the Sustainability: A Semi-Structured Survey Study during COVID-19.

A universal mask use was instituted in healthcare during COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. The extensive growth in the consumption of surgical masks and respirators brought new challenges. Healthcare workers had to get accustomed to wearing the facemasks continuously, raising concerns on the patient, occupational, and environmental safety. The aim of this study is to describe frontline healthcare workers and other authorities' views and experiences on continuous use of surgical masks and respirators (facemasks) and their attitudes towards environmental and sustainability issues. A cross-sectional web-based survey was conducted in Finland during the COVID-19 pandemic in autumn 2020. The respondents(N = 120) were recruited via social media, and the data were collected using a purpose-designed questionnaire. Descriptive statistics and inductive content analysis were used to analyze the quantitative data and qualitative data, respectively. The healthcare workers perceived their own and patient safety, and comfortability of facemasks as important, but according to their experiences, these properties were not evident with the current facemasks. They considered protection properties more important than environmental values. However, biodegradability and biobased material were seen as desired properties in facemasks. Based on the results, the current facemasks do not meet users' expectations well enough. Especially the design, breathability, and sustainability issues should be taken more into account.

Assessing the impact of FFP3 masks to oxygen saturation and pulse rate in the Oral Surgery department at the Glasgow Dental Hospital during the COVID-19 pandemic: an observational study.

Aim: The impact on physiological parameters and well-being from potential respiratory distress caused by FFP3 masks, particularly during extensive clinical sessions, has been widely speculated during the COVID-19 pandemic. This study aims to investigate the effect of FFP3 mask wear on clinicians' pulse rate and oxygen saturation. Material & Methods: Clinical staff within the Oral Surgery department recorded their oxygen saturation (SpO2) and pulse rate prior to donning an FFP3 mask, prior to doffing FFP3 mask and after doffing FFP3 mask using a finger pulse oximeter for a two-week period in May-June 2020. The duration of wear, the session (AM/PM), the brand of mask and the presence of previous COVID-19 symptoms were also recorded. Results: Twenty-eight data sets were collected from twelve participants (1M:11F). Of the FFP3 masks worn, nineteen (67.86%) were ARCOTM, eight (28.57%) were 3MTM masks and one (3.57%) was 3M+TM. At baseline, the mean SpO2 was 98.39% and the mean pulse rate was 72.11. Prior to mask removal, the mean SpO2 was 97.82% and the mean pulse rate was 70.04. At the end of the session, the mean SpO2 was 98.14% and the mean pulse rate was 69.54. The mean duration of wear was 150.34 min. Data sets were collected evenly across AM (14) and PM (14) sessions. Five participants (17.86%) reported previous COVID-19 symptoms. Conclusion: The data demonstrated a mean reduction of 0.25% in oxygen saturation and 3.56% in pulse rate, following the use of an FFP3 mask. These changes in physiological parameters are not clinically significant and sessional use appears to be safe.

Fit-testing of respiratory protective equipment in the UK during the initial response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Public Health England guidance stipulates the use of filtering facepiece (FFP3) masks for healthcare workers engaged in aerosol-generating procedures. Mask fit-testing of respiratory protective equipment is essential to protect healthcare workers from aerosolized particles. AIM: To analyse the outcome of mask fit-testing across National Health Service (NHS) hospitals in the UK during the first wave of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. METHODS: Using the Freedom of Information Act, 137 NHS hospitals were approached on May 26th, 2020 by an independent researcher to provide data on the outcome of fit-testing at each site. FINDINGS: Ninety-six hospitals responded to the request between May 26th, 2020 to October 29th, 2020. There was a total of 86 mask types used across 56 hospitals, 13 of which were used in at least 10% of these hospitals; the most frequently used was the FFP3M1863, used by 92.86% of hospitals. Overall fit-testing pass rates were provided by 32 hospitals with mean pass rate of 80.74%. The most successful masks, in terms of fit-test failure rates, were the Alpha Solway 3030V and the Alpha Solway S-3V (both reporting mean fit-test failures of 2%). Male- and female-specific pass and failure rates were provided by seven hospitals. Across the seven hospitals, 20.1% of men tested failed the fit-test for all masks used, whereas 19.9% of women tested failed the fit-test for all masks used. Failure rates were significantly higher in staff from Black, Asian, and Minority Ethnic (BAME) backgrounds 644/2507 (25.69%) across four hospitals. CONCLUSION: Twenty percent of healthcare workers tested during the first response to the pandemic failed fit-testing for masks. A small sample revealed that this was most prominent in staff from BAME backgrounds.

COVID-19 infection is related to differences in the use of personal protective equipment by orthopaedic specialist trainees caring for hip fracture patients during the second surge of COVID-19 in the North West of England.

INTRODUCTION: Personal protective equipment (PPE) may protect health-care workers from COVID-19 infection and limit nosocomial spread to vulnerable hip fracture patients. METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional survey amongst orthopaedic trainees to explore PPE practice in 19 hospitals caring for hip fracture patients in the North West of England. RESULTS: During the second wave of the pandemic, 14/19 (74%) hospitals experienced an outbreak of COVID-19 amongst staff or patients on the orthopaedic wards. An FFP3 respirator mask was used by doctors in only 6/19 (32%) hospitals when seeing patients with COVID-19 and a cough and in 5/19 (26%) hospitals when seeing asymptomatic patients with COVID-19. A COVID-19 outbreak was reported in 11/13 (85%) orthopaedic units where staff wore fluid resistant surgical masks compared to 3/6 (50%) units using an FFP3 respirator mask (RR 1.69, 95% CI 0.74-3.89) when caring for symptomatic patients with COVID-19. Similarly, a COVID-19 outbreak was reported in more orthopaedic units caring for asymptomatic patients with COVID-19 where staff wore fluid resistant surgical masks (12/14 (86%)) as compared to an FFP3 respirator mask (2/5 (40%)) (RR 2.14, 95% CI 0.72-6.4). CONCLUSION: Urgent re-evaluation of PPE use is required to reduce nosocomial spread of COVID-19, amongst highly vulnerable patients with hip fracture.

Hair today, gone tomorrow: How personal protective equipment guidance changed doctor's facial hair during the COVID-19 pandemic.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate how personal protective equipment (PPE) guidance altered the facial hair of hospital doctors and explore the wider impact and implications of these changes. METHODS: A single site uncontrolled before-after survey study examining change in facial hairstyles, and wider implications on doctor's cultural, religious, and personal wellbeing. Outcome measures included change in facial hair between January and April 2020 and whether these changes adhered to guidance set by Public Health England. Participants were also asked about the wider impact of these changes which were thematically analyzed using an inductive approach. RESULTS: Of those who completed the survey, 257 participants met the inclusion criteria. 68% (n = 67) of doctors who could grow facial hair changed their facial hairstyle during the COVID-19 pandemic and 96% (n = 64) reported that the change was in response to PPE guidance. The odds of having a facial hairstyle that complied with PPE guidance before the pandemic was 0.32, which rose to 2.77 after guidance was released, giving an odds ratio of 8.54 (95% CI 4.49-16.23, P < .001). When compared to those who sported a shaven face prepandemic, the odds ratio of a change in style for those with prepandemic full beards was 37.92 (95% CI 7.45-192.8, P < .001), for goatees was 7.22 (95% CI 1.076-48.47, P = .04), for moustaches was 4.33 (95% CI 0.207-90.85, P = .345), and for stubble was 9.06 (95% CI 2.133-38.49, P = .003). Qualitative analysis revealed multiple themes, including skin irritation, loss of identity, and a significant impact on participants required to maintain a beard due to religious or cultural reasons. CONCLUSIONS: Facial hairstyles have changed significantly at our hospital during the COVID-19 pandemic. Facial hair can impact upon doctors' cultural, religious, and personal wellbeing and these factors need to be considered with policy and provision of PPE.

Under-mask beard cover (Singh Thattha technique) for donning respirator masks in COVID-19 patient care.

Tight-fitting filtering facepiece (FFP3) face masks are essential respiratory protective equipment during aerosol-generating procedures in the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) environment, and require a fit test to assess mask-face seal competency. Facial hair is considered to be an impediment for achieving a competent seal. We describe an under-mask beard cover called the Singh Thattha technique, which obtained a pass rate of 25/27 (92.6%) by qualitative and 5/5 (100%) by quantitative fit test in full-bearded individuals. Sturdier versions of FFP3 were more effective. For individuals for whom shaving is not possible, the Singh Thattha technique could offer an effective solution to safely don respirator masks.

SARS-CoV-2 in environmental perspective: Occurrence, persistence, surveillance, inactivation and challenges.

The unprecedented global spread of the severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) caused by SARS-CoV-2 is depicting the distressing pandemic consequence on human health, economy as well as ecosystem services. So far novel coronavirus (CoV) outbreaks were associated with SARS-CoV-2 (2019), middle east respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV, 2012), and SARS-CoV-1 (2003) events. CoV relates to the enveloped family of Betacoronavirus (ßCoV) with positive-sense single-stranded RNA (+ssRNA). Knowing well the persistence, transmission, and spread of SARS-CoV-2 through proximity, the faecal-oral route is now emerging as a major environmental concern to community transmission. The replication and persistence of CoV in the gastrointestinal (GI) tract and shedding through stools is indicating a potential transmission route to the environment settings. Despite of the evidence, based on fewer reports on SARS-CoV-2 occurrence and persistence in wastewater/sewage/water, the transmission of the infective virus to the community is yet to be established. In this realm, this communication attempted to review the possible influx route of the enteric enveloped viral transmission in the environmental settings with reference to its occurrence, persistence, detection, and inactivation based on the published literature so far. The possibilities of airborne transmission through enteric virus-laden aerosols, environmental factors that may influence the viral transmission, and disinfection methods (conventional and emerging) as well as the inactivation mechanism with reference to the enveloped virus were reviewed. The need for wastewater epidemiology (WBE) studies for surveillance as well as for early warning signal was elaborated. This communication will provide a basis to understand the SARS-CoV-2 as well as other viruses in the context of the environmental engineering perspective to design effective strategies to counter the enteric virus transmission and also serves as a working paper for researchers, policy makers and regulators.

Additional cost in personal protective equipment to NHS services during COVID-19: a review of the expense incurred by Aneurin Bevan Healthboards Maxillofacial unit over a one-year period to meet current clinical guidelines.

COVID-19 has led to increased levels of personal protective equipment (PPE) in surgical specialties. Aneurin Bevan Healthboard Oral and Maxillofacial unit sees approximately 2,808 patients per annum and to meet current guidelines this added PPE is estimated to cost an extra £32,292. Whilst this helps improve safety for clinicians and patients, we also recommend that evidence is regularly reviewed to assess what PPE is justified at different stages of viral prevalence.

Multidisciplinary Safety Recommendations After Tracheostomy During COVID-19 Pandemic: State of the Art Review.

OBJECTIVE: In the chronic phase of the COVID-19 pandemic, questions have arisen regarding the care of patients with a tracheostomy and downstream management. This review addresses gaps in the literature regarding posttracheostomy care, emphasizing safety of multidisciplinary teams, coordinating complex care needs, and identifying and managing late complications of prolonged intubation and tracheostomy. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Cochrane Library, Scopus, Google Scholar, institutional guidance documents. REVIEW METHODS: Literature through June 2020 on the care of patients with a tracheostomy was reviewed, including consensus statements, clinical practice guidelines, institutional guidance, and scientific literature on COVID-19 and SARS-CoV-2 virology and immunology. Where data were lacking, expert opinions were aggregated and adjudicated to arrive at consensus recommendations. CONCLUSIONS: Best practices in caring for patients after a tracheostomy during the COVID-19 pandemic are multifaceted, encompassing precautions during aerosol-generating procedures; minimizing exposure risks to health care workers, caregivers, and patients; ensuring safe, timely tracheostomy care; and identifying and managing laryngotracheal injury, such as vocal fold injury, posterior glottic stenosis, and subglottic stenosis that may affect speech, swallowing, and airway protection. We present recommended approaches to tracheostomy care, outlining modifications to conventional algorithms, raising vigilance for heightened risks of bleeding or other complications, and offering recommendations for personal protective equipment, equipment, care protocols, and personnel. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Treatment of patients with a tracheostomy in the COVID-19 pandemic requires foresight and may rival procedural considerations in tracheostomy in their complexity. By considering patient-specific factors, mitigating transmission risks, optimizing the clinical environment, and detecting late manifestations of severe COVID-19, clinicians can ensure due vigilance and quality care.

In pursuit of COVID-19 surgical risk stratification to manage a limited workforce and supplies in minimally invasive surgery.

The protective barriers used so far in surgery do not provide adequate protection against SARS-CoV-2 virus, and reinforced protective equipment is needed. The rapid increase in the number of patients and the worldwide panic associated with the increasingly low availability of protective equipment has resulted in a shortage of protective equipment in many hospitals. Appropriatepersonal protective equipment must be provided so that the surgical team proceeding to surgery is not excluded from the further struggle for patients' health, especially in MIS. Reckless and excessive use of maximum protective equipment may result in a severe shortage of these products when the number of infected persons requiring surgery increases. The use of a structured infection risk scheme for medical staff, depending on the results of reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction assays and COVID-19 symptoms, combined with the division of protection equipment into three groups, allows easy selection of an appropriate clothing scheme for the clinical setting.

A physicist's approach to COVID-19 transmission via expiratory droplets.

In this paper, a physicist's approach is given to support the necessity to wear surgical masks during the COVID-19 pandemics; they have become compulsory in Eastern countries, while in Western countries they are still an optional. My thesis is supported and described on the basis of a physicist's model which studies the droplets behavior when emitted by the respiratory apparatus of an infected person, symptomatic or not. The intermediate dimensioned droplets are proved to be changed into aerosol, losing their water content and becoming seriously contagious, but in their initial phase they could be easily caught by a simple surgical mask. The actual efficiency of FFP3 masks has been examined and found to be lower than expected.