Decontaminating N95 and SN95 masks with ultraviolet germicidal irradiation does not impair mask efficacy and safety.

Inadequate supply of filtering facepiece respirators (FFRs) for healthcare workers during a pandemic such as the novel coronavirus outbreak (SARS-CoV-2) is a serious public health issue. The aim of this study was to synthesize existing data on the effectiveness of ultraviolet germicidal irradiation (UVGI) for N95 FFR decontamination. A systematic review (PROSPERO CRD42020176156) was conducted on UVGI in N95 FFRs using Embase, Medline, Global Health, Google Scholar, WHO feed, and MedRxiv. Two reviewers independently determined eligibility and extracted predefined variables. Original research reporting on function, decontamination, or mask fit following UVGI were included. Thirteen studies were identified, comprising 54 UVGI intervention arms and 58 N95 models. FFRs consistently maintained certification standards following UVGI. Aerosol penetration averaged 1.19% (0.70-2.48%) and 1.14% (0.57-2.63%) for control and UVGI arms, respectively. Airflow resistance for the control arms averaged 9.79 mm H2O (7.97-11.70 mm H2O) vs 9.85 mm H2O (8.33-11.44 mm H2O) for UVGI arms. UVGI protocols employing a cumulative dose >20,000 J/m2 resulted in a 2-log reduction in viral load. A >3-log reduction was observed in seven UVGI arms using >40,000 J/m2. Impact of UVGI on fit was evaluated in two studies (16,200; 32,400 J/m2) and no evidence of compromise was found. Our findings suggest that further work in this area (or translation to a clinical setting) should use a cumulative UV-C dose of 40,000 J/m2 or greater, and confirm appropriate mask fit following decontamination.

On the frontlines: Protecting low-wage workers during COVID-19.

An examination of the trajectory of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic and its subsequent economic impacts has revealed that this crisis will impact low-wage workers more severely than all others. The present commentary highlights the unique factors associated with low-wage work that make these workers particularly vulnerable to the effects of the pandemic, identifies potential adverse effects on the mental health of this population, and provides recommendations to maintain the safety, wellbeing, and dignity of low-wage workers. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).

COVID-19 coronavirus: recommended personal protective equipment for the orthopaedic and trauma surgeon.

PURPOSE: With the COVID-19 crisis, recommendations for personal protective equipment (PPE) are necessary for protection in orthopaedics and traumatology. The primary purpose of this study is to review and present current evidence and recommendations for personal protective equipment and safety recommendations for orthopaedic surgeons and trauma surgeons. METHODS: A systematic review of the available literature was performed using the keyword terms "COVID-19", "Coronavirus", "surgeon", "health-care workers", "protection", "masks", "gloves", "gowns", "helmets", and "aerosol" in several combinations. The following databases were assessed: Pubmed, Cochrane Reviews, Google Scholar. Due to the paucity of available data, it was decided to present it in a narrative manner. In addition, participating doctors were asked to provide their guidelines for PPE in their countries (Austria, Luxembourg, Switzerland, Germany, UK) for consideration in the presented practice recommendations. RESULTS: World Health Organization guidance for respiratory aerosol-generating procedures (AGPs) such as intubation in a COVID19 environment was clear and included the use of an FFP3 (filtering face piece level 3) mask and face protection. However, the recommendation for surgical AGPs, such as the use of high-speed power tools in the operating theatre, was not clear until the UK Public Health England (PHE) guidance of 27 March 2020. This guidance included FFP3 masks and face protection, which UK surgeons quickly adopted. The recommended PPE for orthopaedic surgeons, working in a COVID19 environment, should consist of level 4 surgical gowns, face shields or goggles, double gloves, FFP2-3 or N95-99 respirator masks. An alternative to the mask, face shield and goggles is a powered air-purifying respirator, particularly if the surgeons fail the mask fit test or are required to undertake a long procedure. However, there is a high cost and limited availabilty of these devices at present. Currently available surgical helmets and toga systems may not be the solution due to a permeable top for air intake. During the current COVID-19 crisis, it appeared that telemedicine can be considered as an electronic personal protective equipment by reducing the number of physical contacts and risk contamination. CONCLUSION: Orthopaedic and trauma surgery using power tools, pulsatile lavage and electrocautery are surgical aerosol-generating procedures and all body fluids contain virus particles. Raising awareness of these issues will help avoid occupational transmission of COVID-19 to the surgical team by aerosolization of blood or other body fluids and hence adequate PPE should be available and used during orthopaedic surgery. In addition, efforts have to be made to improve the current evidence in this regard. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.