Efficacy and safety of short-wave diathermy treatment for moderate COVID-19 patients: a prospective, double-blind, randomized controlled clinical study.

BACKGROUND: Millions of human beings have suffered in the epidemic of Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), but until now the effective treatment methods have been limited. AIM: This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of short-wave diathermy (SWD) treatment for moderate COVID-19 patients. DESIGN: A prospective, double-blind, randomized controlled clinical study. SETTING: Inpatients Unit of a COVID-19 specialized hospital. POPULATION: Forty-two patients with moderate COVID-19 were randomly allocated at a 2:1 ratio to two groups: the SWD group and the control group. METHODS: Participants of the SWD group received SWD treatment, and participants of the control group received placebo SWD treatment for one session per day, 10 minutes per session, for no more than 14 days. Both groups were given standard care treatment. Primary outcome was the rate of clinical improvement according to a seven-category ordinal scale. Secondary outcomes included the rate of computed tomography (CT) improvement and the rate of potential adverse events. RESULTS: Clinical improvement occurred in 92.6% of patients in the SWD group by day 14 compared with 69.2% of patients in the control group (P=0.001). The Cox model indicated that the SWD group had a higher clinical improvement probability than the control group (hazard ratio: 3.045; 95% CI: 1.391-6.666; P=0.005). Similarly, CT improvement occurred in 85.2% of patients in the SWD group and 46.2% of patients in the control group respectively by day 14 (P=0.001). The Cox model indicated SWD group had a higher CT improvement probability than control group (hazard ratio: 3.720; 95% CI: 1.486-9.311; P=0.005). There was no significant difference in adverse events between the SWD group and the control group (2 of 27 [7.4%] SWD vs. 1 of 13 [7.7%] control, P=1.000), the most frequent of which were headache (1 of 27 [3.7%] SWD vs. 1 of 13 [7.7%] control patients) and dizziness (1 of 27 [3.7%] SWD vs. 0 of 13 [0%] control patients). CONCLUSIONS: SWD is a valid and reliable adjuvant therapy with a favorable safety profile for moderate COVID-19 patients. CLINICAL REHABILITATION IMPACT: Clinically relevant information is lacking regarding the efficacy and safety of SWD for patients with COVID-19. This study provides the first evidence that SWD is a promising adjuvant therapy for COVID-19.

Anti-Inflammatory and Anti-Oxidant Activity of Ultra-Short Wave Diathermy on LPS-Induced Rat Lung Injury.

We studied the lung-protective effect and mechanisms of the anti-inflammatory and antioxidant effects of ultra-short-wave diathermy (USWD) in a rat model of LPS-induced acute lung injury. Histological examination of the lung tissues was performed and the levels of oxidative stress-related factors and inflammatory cytokines were measured. It was shown that the lung injury score, the lung wet-to-dry weight ratio (W/D), oxidative stress-related factors malondialdehyde and acyl-CoA synthetase long-chain family member 4 (ACSL4), and inflammatory cytokines were increased after LPS administration, while USWD treatment reduced these parameters. In addition, superoxide dismutase and glutathione peroxidase 4 were decreased in rats with LPS-induced acute lung injury, while USWD therapy up-regulated the expression of these enzymes. Thus, USWD could antagonize lung injury by inhibiting oxidative stress and inflammatory response in rats with acute lung injury. USWD can be a promising adjunctive treatment to counter oxidative stress and inflammation and a potential therapeutic candidate for the treatment of patients with this pathology.

Electrosurgery Turbinate Reduction Revisited: Can Comparable Volumetric Heating be Achieved Without Feedback Control?

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Temperature-controlled radiofrequency inferior turbinate ablation (TCRFA) uses a feedback system to control thermal injury and achieve precise volumetric heating to induce specific scar formation. However, it requires costly single-use proprietary consumables. Comparable volumetric tissue heating may be achieved for a fraction of the cost by adjusting the power settings on traditional monopolar electrosurgery devices that use low-cost needle tips. This pre-clinical study aims to determine the optimized power parameters to achieve electrosurgical coagulum volume similar to that of TCRFA. STUDY DESIGN/MATERIALS AND METHODS: An electrosurgery submucosal diathermy (SMD) system (cut mode, 4-32 W, 5-120 seconds) and a temperature-controlled radiofrequency ablation system (standard clinical parameters for treating inferior turbinate hypertrophy) were used to coagulate egg white and chicken breast. Coagulum major and minor axis were measured, and lesion volume was approximated as prolate spheroid. RESULTS: No significant difference in volume was found between the temperature-controlled system and the electrosurgery system at 8 W for 30 seconds, 8 W for 60 seconds, 16 W for 30 seconds, 32 W for 5 seconds, and 32 W for 15 seconds. The time to achieve equivalent lesion size was significantly less in the SMD system when compared to the temperature-controlled system (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Electrosurgery handpieces may achieve similar lesion volume effects as the temperature feedback-controlled, single-use handpieces when set to the optimized parameters. SMD handpieces are significantly more cost and time effective than proprietary devices, and they are easily used in the office. SMD devices may be a more affordable alternative to temperature-controlled systems with comparable lesion volume effect and may be valuable for office-based therapy. Lasers Surg. Med. © 2020 Wiley Periodicals LLC.

Electrocautery, Diathermy, and Surgical Energy Devices: Are Surgical Teams at Risk During the COVID-19 Pandemic?

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to provide a rapid synthesis of available data to identify the risk posed by utilizing surgical energy devices intraoperatively due to the generation of surgical smoke, an aerosol. Secondarily it aims to summarize methods to minimize potential risk to operating room staff. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Continuing operative practice during the coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) pandemic places the health of operating theatre staff at potential risk. SARS-CoV2 is transmitted through inhaled droplets and aerosol particles, thus posing an inhalation threat even at considerable distance. Surgical energy devices generate an aerosol of biological particular matter during use. The risk to healthcare staff through use of surgical energy devices is unknown. METHODS: This review was conducted utilizing a rapid review methodology to enable efficient generation and dissemination of information useful for concurrent clinical practice. RESULTS: There are conflicting stances on the use of energy devices and laparoscopy by different surgical governing bodies and societies. There is no definitive evidence that aerosol generated by energy devices may carry active SARS-CoV2 virus. However, investigations of other viruses have demonstrated aerosolization through energy devise use. Measures to reduce potential transmission include appropriate personal protective equipment, evacuation and filtration of surgical plume, limiting energy device use if appropriate, and adjusting endoscopic and laparoscopic practice (low CO2 pressures, evacuation through ultrafiltration systems). CONCLUSIONS: The risk of transmission of SARS-CoV2 through aerosolized surgical smoke associated with energy device use is not fully understood, however transmission is biologically plausible. Caution and appropriate measures to reduce risk to healthcare staff should be implemented when considering intraoperative use of energy devices.