The outcomes of same-day discharge following holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) surgeries: our experience during the COVID-19 pandemic.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the outcomes of Same-Day Discharge (SDD) following Holmium Laser Enucleation of the Prostate (HoLEP) in patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: A retrospective review of HoLEP surgeries at a single institution between January 2021 and March 2022 was performed. Patient demographic and operative data were collected, and postoperative outcomes were evaluated in terms of safety and efficacy and compared in both groups using a t-test and chi-square test. Logistic regression was also performed to identify factors that correlate with the failure of SDD. RESULTS: A total of 155 patients were identified; 135 patients were successfully discharged on the same day and 20 were admitted (87% SDD rate). Admitted HoLEP patients had a significantly higher median prostate-specific antigen (5.7 vs 3.9 ng/dL, P < 0.001), prostate volume (152.3 vs 100.6 mL, P < 0.001), and enucleated tissue weight (90.3 vs 56.9 g, P = 0.04) compared to the SDD group. The SDD group had a 2.9% (n = 4) readmission rate and a 5.2% (n = 7) Emergency Department (ED) visit rate. There was no significant difference in the rate of postoperative ED visits (P = 0.64), readmissions (P = 0.98), complications, and catheterization time (P = 0.98) between both groups. Preoperative predictors of SDD failure included prostate gland volume > 150 mL (OR = 7.17; CI 2.01-25.67; P < 0.01) and history of antiplatelet/anticoagulation use (OR = 6.59; CI 2.00-21.67; P < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Same-day discharge following HoLEP is a safe and effective approach that can be performed in most patients using a liberal discharge criteria and relying on postoperative findings only.

Treatment of Hidradenitis Suppurativa Evaluation Study (THESEUS): protocol for a prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) is a chronic, painful, inflammatory skin disease with estimates of prevalence in the European population of 1%-2%. Despite being a relatively common condition, the evidence base for management of HS is limited. European and North American management guidelines rely on consensus for many aspects of treatment and within the UK variations in management of HS have been identified. The HS James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership (PSP) published a top 10 list of future HS research priorities including both medical and surgical interventions. The aims of the THESEUS study are to inform the design of future HS randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and to understand how HS treatments are currently used. THESEUS incorporates several HS PSP research priorities, including investigation of oral and surgical treatments. Core outcome domains have been established by the HIdradenitis SuppuraTiva cORe outcomes set International Collaboration (HISTORIC) and THESEUS is designed to validate instruments to measure the domains. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The THESEUS study is a prospective observational cohort study. Participants, adults with active HS of any severity, will be asked to select one of five HS treatment options that is appropriate for their HS care. Participants will be allocated to their chosen treatment intervention and followed for a period of up to 12 months. Outcomes will be assessed at 3-monthly intervals using HISTORIC core outcome instruments. Video recordings of the surgical and laser operations will provide informational and training videos for future trials. Nested mixed-methods studies will characterise the interventions in clinical practice, understand facilitators and barriers to recruitment into future HS RCTs and examine patients' and clinicians' perspectives on HS treatment choices. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN69985145.

The evidence behind the use of LASER for genitourinary syndrome of menopause, vulvovaginal atrophy, urinary incontinence and lichen sclerosus: A state-of-the-art review.

In recent years, LASER has been introduced as a minimally invasive treatment for a broad range of vaginal and vulvar symptoms and diseases. However, the efficacy and safety of vaginal and vulvar LASER has continuously been questioned. The aim of this study is to create an overview of the current literature and discuss the controversies within the use of LASER for genitourinary syndrome of menopause, vulvovaginal atrophy, urinary incontinence and lichen sclerosus. A search string was built in PubMed. The search was commenced on August 25, 2021 and closed on October 27, 2021. Two authors screened the studies in Covidence for inclusion according to the eligibility criteria in the protocol. The data were extracted from the studies and are reported in both text and tables. This review included 114 papers, of which 15 were randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The effect of LASER as a vaginal treatment was investigated for genitourinary syndrome of menopause in 36 studies (six RCTs), vulvovaginal atrophy in 34 studies (four RCTs) and urinary incontinence in 30 studies (two RCTs). Ten studies (three RCTs) investigated the effect of vulvar treatment for lichen sclerosus. Half of the included RCTs, irrespective of indication, did not find a significant difference in improvement in women treated with vaginal CO2 or Er:YAG LASER compared with their respective controls. However, most non-comparative studies reported significant improvement after exposure to vaginal or vulvar LASER across all indications. Included studies generally had a short follow-up period and only a single RCT followed their participants for more than 6 months post treatment. Adverse events were reported as mild and transient and 99 studies including 51 094 patients provided information of no serious adverse events. In conclusion, this review found that the effect of vaginal and vulvar LASER decreases with higher study quality where potential biases have been eliminated. We therefore stress that all patients who are treated with vaginal or vulvar LASER should be carefully monitored and that LASER for those indications as a treatment should be kept on a research level until further high-quality evidence is available.

Impact of Early COVID-19 Pandemic on Common Ophthalmic Procedures Volumes: A US Claims-Based Analysis.

PURPOSE: The COVID-19 pandemic has had a profound effect on the delivery of healthcare in the United States and globally. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of COVID-19 on common ophthalmic procedure utilization and normalization to pre-pandemic daily rates. METHODS: Leveraging a national database, Clinformatics™ DataMart (OptumInsight, Eden Prairie, MN), procedure frequencies and daily averages, defined by Current Procedural Terminology codes, of common elective and non-elective procedures within multiple ophthalmology sub-specialties were calculated. Interrupted time-series analysis with a Poisson regression model and smooth spline functions was used to model trends in pre-COVID-19 (January 1, 2018-February 29, 2020) and COVID-19 (March 1, 2020-June 30, 2020) periods. RESULTS: Of 3,583,231 procedures in the study period, 339,607 occurred during the early COVID-19 time period. Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor injections (44,412 to 39,774, RR 1.01, CI 0.99-1.02; p = .212), retinal detachment repairs (1,290 to 1,086, RR 1.07, CI 0.99-1.15; p = .103), and glaucoma drainage implants/trabeculectomies (706 to 487, RR 0.93, CI 0.83-1.04; p = .200) remained stable. Cataract surgery (61,421 to 33,054, RR 0.77; CI 0.76-0.78; p < .001), laser peripheral iridotomy (1,875 to 890, RR 0.82, CI 0.76-0.88; p < .001), laser trabeculoplasty (2,680 to 1,753, RR 0.79, CI 0.74-0.84; p < .001), and blepharoplasty (1,522 to 797, RR 0.71, CI 0.66-0.77; p < .001) all declined significantly. All procedures except laser iridotomy returned to pre-COVID19 rates by June 2020. CONCLUSION: Most ophthalmic procedures that significantly declined during the COVID-19 pandemic were elective procedures. Among these, the majority returned to 2019 daily averages by June 2020.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the stage and the type of surgical treatment of laryngeal cancer.

PURPOSE: Changes in the entire health care system during COVID-19 epidemic have affected the management of patients with head and neck cancer and posed several clinical challenges for ENT surgeons. Therefore, the present study aimed to investigate the effect of COVID-19 on the stage and the type of surgical treatments used in laryngeal cancer (including total laryngectomy, supracricoid partial laryngectomy (SCPL) and transoral laser microsurgery (TLM)) and also to compare the results of April 2020 to April 2021 with the previous year. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This cross-sectional study was performed on all patients with a diagnosis of laryngeal cancer who underwent surgery in the tertiary care center from April 2020 to April 2021 and the year before the pandemic in the same time. Demographic, cancer stage, and treatment data of all patients were recorded and analysis in two groups. RESULTS: Patients referred at the time of the virus outbreak; 111 were male and 5 were female, and in the group of patients referred before COVID-19, 90 were male and 12 were female. The type of surgical treatment of laryngeal cancer, mean time elapsed from sampling to surgery, stage of disease and mean tumor volume was statistically significant differences in patients before and during the outbreak. CONCLUSION: Patients who referred for diagnosis and treatment at the time of COVID-19 outbreak had more advanced stages of the disease and also the tumor volume was higher in them than patients who had referred before the outbreak. It is necessary to provide new solutions, education and treatment management for patients with laryngeal cancer in such pandemics.

COVID-19: The experience from Iran.

The first cases of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Iran were detected on February 19, 2020. Soon the entire country was hit with the virus. Although dermatologists were not immediately the frontline health care workers, all aspects of their practice were drastically affected. Adapting to this unprecedented crisis required urgent appropriate responses. With preventive measures and conserving health care resources being the most essential priorities, dermatologists, as an integral part of the health system, needed to adapt their practices according to the latest guidelines. The spectrum of the challenges encompassed education, teledermatology, lasers, and other dermatologic procedures, as well as management of patients who were immunosuppressed or developed drug reactions and, most importantly, the newly revealed cutaneous signs of COVID-19. These challenges have paved the way for new horizons in dermatology.

Laser dentistry in daily practice during the COVID-19 pandemic: Benefits, risks and recommendations for safe treatments.

The COVID-19 pandemic forced dental professionals to cope with an unexpected challenge and caused an abrupt cessation of conventional care practices. The high degree of contagiousness as well as the diffusion of the virus through the air and droplets via respiratory transmission placed dental professionals at top-level risk of contracting and spreading the disease. General recommendations were announced in different countries, including patient distancing, air ventilation, surface and instrument sanitization, and the wearing of suitable masks and shields. However, many dental treatments are performed using lasers, and some specific precautions must be added to conventional procedures to ensure the advantages of this technology to patients because of the particular tissue­matter interaction effects of laser wavelengths. Based on the literature, the authors evaluated all of using laser wavelengths to analyze the risk and the benefits of using lasers in daily dental practice, and to provide safety recommendations during pandemic. An unrestricted search of indexed databases was performed. Laser use effects were categorized into: 1) explosive processes that produce tissue ablation and aerosol formation; 2) thermal actions that create vaporization and smoke plume; 3) photobiomodulation of the cells; and 4) enhanced chemical activity. Knowledge of the device functions and choice of adequate parameters will reduce aerosol and plume formation, and the application of suction systems with high flow volume and good filtration close to the surgical site will avoid virus dissemination during laser use. In the categories that involve low energy, the beneficial effects of lasers are available and sometimes preferable during this pandemic because only conventional precautions are required. Lasers maintain the potential to add benefits to dental practice even in the COVID-19 era, but it is necessary to know how lasers work to utilize these advantages. The great potential of laser light, with undiscovered limits, may provide a different path to face the severe health challenges of this pandemic.

Plume Effect of Fractional Radiofrequency Verus Laser Resurfacing: Considerations in the COVID-19 Pandemic.

INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic requires us all to re-evaluate aesthetic practices to ensure optimal patient safety during elective procedures. Specifically, energy-based devices and lasers require special consideration, as they may emit plume which has been shown to contain tissue debris and aerosolized biological materials. Prior studies have shown transmission of viruses and bacteria via plume (i.e., HIV and papillomavirus). The purpose of this study was to evaluate plume characteristics of the Er:YAG resurfacing laser (Sciton; Palo Alto, CA) and compare it to the Morpheus8 fractional radiofrequency device (InMode; Lake Forest, CA). METHODS: Five patients who underwent aesthetic resurfacing and/or skin tightening of the face and neck were treated with the Er:YAG (Sciton Joule, Palo Alto, CA) and/or fractional radiofrequency (Morpheus8, Lake Forest, CA) between April 1 and May 11, 2020. Data collected included patient demographics, past medical history, treatment parameters, adverse events, particle counter data, as well as high magnification video equiptment. Patients were evaluated during treatment with a calibrated particle meter (PCE; Jupiter, FL). The particle meter was used at a consistent focal distance (6-12 inches) to sample the surrounding environment during treatment at 2.83 L/min to a counting efficiency of 50% at 0.3 µm and 100% at >0.45 µm. Recordings were obtained with and without a smoke evacuator. RESULTS: Of our cohort (n = 5), average age was 58 years old (STD ±7.2). Average Fitzpatrick type was between 2 and 3. Two patients received Er:YAG fractional resurfacing in addition to fractional radiofrequency during the same treatment session. Two patients had fractional radiofrequency only, and one patient had laser treatment with the Er:YAG only. There were no adverse events recorded. The particle counter demonstrated ambient baseline particles/second (pps) at 8 (STD ±6). During fractional radiofrequency treatment at 1-mm depth, the mean recording was 8 pps (STD ±8). At the more superficial depth of 0.5 mm, recordings showed 10 pps (STD ±6). The Er:YAG laser resurfacing laser had mean readings of 44 pps (STD ±11). When the particle sizes were broken down by size, the fractional radiofrequency device had overall smaller particle sizes with a count of 251 for 0.3 µm (STD ±147) compared with Er:YAG laser with a count of 112 for 0.3 µm (STD ±84). The fractional radiofrequency did not appear to emit particles >5 µm throughout the treatment, however, the Er:YAG laser consistently recorded majority of particles in the range of 5-10 µm. The addition of the smoke evacuator demonstrated a 50% reduction in both particles per second recorded as well as all particle sizes. CONCLUSION: Re-evaluation of the plume effect from aesthetic devices has become important during the COVID-19 pandemic. Further studies are required to characterize viability of COVID-19 viability and transmissibility in plume specimens. Based on this pilot study, we recommend that devices that generate little to no plume such as fractional radiofrequency devices be used in Phase I reopening of practice while devices that generate a visible plume such as Er:YAG laser resurfacing devices be avoided and only used with appropriate personal protective equipment in addition to a smoke evacuator in Phase IV reopening.

Applications of Office-Based 445 nm Blue Laser Transnasal Flexible Laser Surgery: A Case Series and Review of Practice.

BACKGROUND: The recent introduction of 445 nm blue laser to office-based laryngology presents potential advantages. These include a desirable combination of cutting and photoangiolytic qualities and a lightweight, shock-resistant design. Despite its increasing use, current evidence is limited to experimental data and case reports. OBJECTIVES: The authors present a case series and overview of office blue laser transnasal flexible laser surgery (TNFLS), considering indications, patient selection, safety, technique, and surgical outcomes. We also review the safety and relevance of TNFLS to the ongoing coronavirus pandemic. METHODS: Retrospective case series and narrative review. Our primary outcome measure was preoperative and postoperative Voice Handicap Index (VHI-10) score. Complications were documented by nature and severity. RESULTS: Thirty-six cases of office blue laser TNFLS were performed. A statistically significant improvement in VHI-10 score was demonstrated in cases of recurrent respiratory papillomatosis (RRP) and benign laryngeal lesions causing dysphonia (P < 0.01 and 0.045). Blue laser also proved effective in assisting office biopsy procedures. A minor and self-limiting complication was reported. CONCLUSIONS: Office blue laser TNFLS is safe and effective in the treatment of RRP and a range of benign laryngeal lesions. Future research should compare the efficacy and safety of blue laser with potassium titanyl phosphate laser in office-based treatment of these conditions. Further assessment of the cutting qualities of blue laser, initially in the theater environment, is necessary to refine our understanding of future applications.

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.

Lasers in Οtolaryngology: A Laser Odyssey From Carbon Dioxide to True Blue.

In this special issue of the Ear Nose and Throat (ENT) journal entitled Lasers in Otolaryngology, we attempted to cover and accommodate different experiences from around the globe on both established and some not so well-known techniques and indications for Lasers in most ENT subspecialties. Despite the COVID 19 pandemic, authors from all over the world have expressed their interest in publishing their Laser experiences with ENT journal and for this we are very grateful.

Guidance on infection control and plume management with Laser and Energy-Based Devices taking into consideration COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted the practice of medicine. Dermatologic laser and energy-based device (EBD) treatments carry a potential risk for the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 both for the patient and the practitioner. These risks include close practitioner to patient proximity, the treatment of higher viral load areas such as the face, the potential for infective bioparticles being carried by generated plumes and aerosols, and the direct contact between device, practitioner and patient. OBJECTIVES: SARS-CoV-2 is a highly infective respiratory pathogen transmitted by respiratory droplets, respiratory/mucosal secretions, medically generated aerosols and via its transfer from contaminated fomites. This requires a review of the appropriateness of infection control protocols in regard to dermatologic laser and energy-based device treatments. METHODS: A critical evaluation of patient skin preparation including skin asepsis, device disinfection, laser and electrosurgical plume management and PPE in regard to SARS-CoV-2 was performed. RESULTS: The adherence to a high standard of skin preparation and asepsis, device disinfection, laser and electrosurgical plume and aerosol management and appropriate PPE should help mitigate or reduce some of the inherent treatment risks. Head and neck treatments along with aerosol and laser plume generating treatments likely carry greater risk. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 needs to be considered in the clinic set-up along with the planning, treatment and post-treatment care of patients utilising EBD procedures. Some of these treatment precautions are COVID-19 specific; however, most represent adherence to good infectious disease and established laser and EBD safety precautions.

Insights into laser safety considerations during COVID 19 pandemic.

The World Health Organization has recently defined the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections as a pandemic. The infection, which may cause a potentially very severe respiratory disease, now called coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), has airborne transmission via droplets while less attention focused on aerosol transmission. Surgical smoke and plumes in laser clinics represent a source for aerosol particles. The aim of this article is to provide the authors' opinion for the correct use of "laser devices" in the COVID-19 emergency and to reduce potential risks of laser airborne contaminants.