Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 64
Filter
Add filters

Document Type
Year range
3.
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol ; 265: 130-136, 2021 Oct.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1370511

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Health disparities exposed by the Covid-19 pandemic have prompted healthcare professionals to investigate disparities within their own specialty. Racial and ethnic disparities in obstetrics are well documented but inequities in gynaecology are less well known. Our aim is to review the literature on two commonly performed procedures, hysterectomy and myomectomy, and one condition, ectopic pregnancy, to evaluate the prevalence of racial, ethnic and socioeconomic disparities in benign gynaecology and minimal access surgery. METHODS: A narrative review of 33 articles identified from a Pubmed using the following search criteria; "race"; "ethnicity"; "socioeconomic status"; "disparity"; "inequity"; and "inequality". Case reports and papers assessing gynaecological malignancy were excluded. RESULTS: Despite minimal access surgery having fewer complications and faster recovery than open surgery, US studies have shown that black and ethnic minority women are less likely than white women to have minimally invasive hysterectomies and myomectomies. Uninsured women and patients on Medicaid are also less likely to receive minimally invasive procedures. Contributing factors include fibroid size, geographic location and access to hospitals performing minimal access surgery, and the discontinuation of power morcellation. Ethnic minority women who receive minimally invasive myomectomy have been shown to have a higher risk of complications and prolonged recovery. Black and ethnic minority women also have a higher risk of morbidity and mortality from ectopic pregnancy and are more likely to receive surgical than medical management. CONCLUSION: Extensive study from the US has demonstrated disparities in access to minimally invasive gynaecological surgery, whereas in the UK the data is infrequent, inconsistent and incomplete. Little is known about the influence of patient preference and counselling as well as institutional bias on health equity in gynaecology. Further research is necessary to identify interventions that mitigate these disparities in access and outcomes.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Gynecology , Obstetrics , Female , Humans , Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures , Minority Groups , Pandemics , Pregnancy , SARS-CoV-2 , United States , Uterus
4.
J Surg Oncol ; 124(8): 1217-1223, 2021 Dec.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1363705

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: In order for patients with gastrointestinal cancer not to suffer the consequences of delayed treatment, they should be operated on in pandemic hospitals under adequate conditions. We aimed to discuss the outcomes of our gastrointestinal cancer surgery patients and to present our patient management recommendations to resume operative treatment during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic while taking into account hospital facilities. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study included 129 gastrointestinal cancer patients who underwent surgery between March 2020 and May 2021 in the gastrointestinal surgery clinic of our hospital, which was assigned as a pandemic hospital in March 2020. Patients' demographic characteristics and preoperative and postoperative findings were recorded. RESULTS: Among the patients, 42.6% (n = 55) were female and 57.3% (n = 74) were male. The mean age was 61.89 ± 3.4 years. The primary tumor organs were the stomach 37.2% (n = 48), pancreas 36.4% (n = 47), rectum 11.6% (n = 15), colon 8.5% (n = 11), and esophagus 6.2% (n = 8). The patients were treated with open (75.2%, n = 97) or minimally invasive surgery (24.8%, n = 32; laparoscopic 11.6%, n = 15; robotic 13.2%, n = 17). Eight patients tested positive for COVID-19 before surgery. No patients developed COVID-19 during postoperative intensive care or after being moved to the floor unit. There was no COVID-19-related morbidity or mortality. CONCLUSION: Failure to treat gastrointestinal cancer patients during the pandemic may result in undesirable consequences, such as stage shift and mortality. Cancer patients can be treated safely with conventional and minimally invasive surgery guided by current recommendations and experience.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Digestive System Surgical Procedures/methods , Gastrointestinal Neoplasms/surgery , Laparoscopy/methods , Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures/methods , Robotic Surgical Procedures/methods , COVID-19/virology , Female , Follow-Up Studies , Gastrointestinal Neoplasms/pathology , Humans , Length of Stay , Male , Middle Aged , Prognosis , Prospective Studies , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Turkey/epidemiology
6.
PLoS One ; 16(7): e0254958, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1331994

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic forced a reconsideration of surgical patient management in the setting of scarce resources and risk of viral transmission. Herein we assess the impact of implementing a protocol of more rigorous patient education, recovery room assessment for non-ICU admission, earlier mobilization and post-discharge communication for patients undergoing brain tumor surgery. METHODS: A case-control retrospective review was undertaken at a community hospital with a dedicated neurosurgery and otolaryngology team using minimally invasive surgical techniques, total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) and early post-operative imaging protocols. All patients undergoing craniotomy or endoscopic endonasal removal of a brain, skull base or pituitary tumor were included during two non-overlapping periods: March 2019-January 2020 (pre-pandemic epoch) versus March 2020-January 2021 (pandemic epoch with streamlined care protocol implemented). Data collection included demographics, preoperative American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) status, tumor pathology, and tumor resection and remission rates. Primary outcomes were ICU utilization and hospital length of stay (LOS). Secondary outcomes were complications, readmissions and reoperations. FINDINGS: Of 295 patients, 163 patients were treated pre-pandemic (58% women, mean age 53.2±16 years) and 132 were treated during the pandemic (52% women, mean age 52.3±17 years). From pre-pandemic to pandemic, ICU utilization decreased from 92(54%) to 43(29%) of operations (p<0.001) and hospital LOS≤1 day increased from 21(12.2%) to 60(41.4%), p<0.001, respectively. For craniotomy cohort, median LOS was 2 days for both epochs; median ICU LOS decreased from 1 to 0 days (p<0.001), ICU use decreased from 73(80%) to 29(33%),(p<0.001). For endonasal cohort, median LOS decreased from 2 to 1 days; median ICU LOS was 0 days for both epochs; (p<0.001). There were no differences pre-pandemic versus pandemic in ASA scores, resection/remission rates, readmissions or reoperations. CONCLUSION: This experience suggests the COVID-19 pandemic provided an opportunity for implementing a brain tumor care protocol to facilitate safely decreasing ICU utilization and accelerating discharge home without an increase in complications, readmission or reoperations. More rigorous patient education, recovery room assessment for non-ICU admission, earlier mobilization and post-discharge communication, layered upon a foundation of minimally invasive surgery, TIVA anesthesia and early post-operative imaging are possible contributors to these favorable trends.


Subject(s)
Brain Neoplasms/surgery , COVID-19/prevention & control , Pandemics/prevention & control , Case-Control Studies , Craniotomy/methods , Enhanced Recovery After Surgery , Female , Hospitalization , Humans , Length of Stay , Male , Middle Aged , Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures/methods , Patient Discharge , Patient Readmission , Postoperative Complications/prevention & control , Postoperative Period , Reoperation/methods , Retrospective Studies
7.
Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol ; 33(4): 262-269, 2021 08 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1286605

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This article will review current guidelines regarding surgical protocols for elective and nonelective surgeries during the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 pandemic. RECENT FINDINGS: Perioperative management for surgical patients should be modified to promote the safety and wellbeing of patients and caregivers amidst the COVID-19 pandemic. COVID-19 testing should be performed preoperatively with subsequent preprocedure quarantine. Nonemergent or nonlife-threatening surgery should be postponed for COVID-19 positive patients. The consensus of surgical societies is to use a laparoscopic surgical approach for COVID-19 positive patients when appropriate and to avoid port venting at the end of procedures. For COVID-19 positive patients requiring an emergent procedure, the use of personal protective equipment is strongly recommended. SUMMARY: After over a year of the COVID-19 pandemic, effective protocols and precautions have been established to decrease the morbidity and mortality of patients undergoing surgery and to promote the safety of healthcare personnel. Continued investigations are necessary as cases of new, possibly more virulent, strains of the virus arise.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/prevention & control , Disease Transmission, Infectious/prevention & control , Gynecologic Surgical Procedures/standards , Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures/standards , Perioperative Care/standards , Practice Guidelines as Topic , Female , Humans , Laparoscopy , Personal Protective Equipment , SARS-CoV-2
8.
J Cardiothorac Surg ; 16(1): 182, 2021 Jun 24.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1282263

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The timing for heart surgery following cerebral embolization after cardiac valve vegetation is vital to postoperative recovery being uneventful, additionally Covid-19 may negatively affect the outcome. Minimally invasive methods and upgraded surgical instruments maximize the benefits of surgery also in complex cardiac revision cases with substantial perioperative risk. CASE PRESENTATION: A 68 y.o. patient, 10 years after previous sternotomy for OPCAB was referred to cardiac surgery on the 10th postoperative day after neurosurgical intervention for intracerebral bleeding with suspected mitral valve endocarditis. Mitral valve vegetation, tricuspid valve insufficiency and coronary stenosis were diagnosed and treated by minimally invasive revision cardiac surgery on the 14th postoperative day after neurosurgery. CONCLUSION: The present clinical case demonstrates for the first time that the minimally invasive approach via right anterior mini-thoracotomy can be safely used for concomitant complex mitral valve reconstruction, tricuspid valve repair and aorto-coronary bypass surgery, even as a revision procedure in the presence of florid endocarditis after recent neurosurgical intervention. The Covid-19 pandemic and prophylactic patient isolation slow down the efficacy of pulmonary weaning and mobilisation and prolong the need for ICU treatment, without adversely affecting long-term outcome.


Subject(s)
Coronary Artery Bypass/methods , Coronary Stenosis/surgery , Endocarditis/surgery , Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures/methods , Mitral Valve/surgery , Tricuspid Valve Insufficiency/surgery , Video-Assisted Surgery/methods , Aged , COVID-19/epidemiology , Coronary Artery Bypass/adverse effects , Coronary Artery Bypass/instrumentation , Humans , Male , Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures/adverse effects , Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures/instrumentation , Pandemics , Postoperative Complications , Reoperation , SARS-CoV-2 , Thoracotomy/adverse effects , Thoracotomy/instrumentation , Thoracotomy/methods , Video-Assisted Surgery/adverse effects
9.
Otolaryngol Clin North Am ; 54(1): 11-23, 2021 Feb.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1235961

ABSTRACT

A new era of surgical visualization and magnification is poised to disrupt the field of otology and neurotology. The once revolutionary benefits of the binocular microscope now are shared with rigid endoscopes and exoscopes. These 2 modalities are complementary. The endoscope improves visualization of the hidden recesses through the external auditory canal or canal-up mastoidectomy. The exoscope provides an immersive visual experience and superior ergonomics compared with binocular microscopy. Endoscopes and exoscopes are poised to disrupt the standard of care for surgical visualization and magnification in otology and neurotology.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Endoscopes/standards , Endoscopy/instrumentation , Neurotology/instrumentation , Otolaryngology/instrumentation , Pandemics , Ear Canal/surgery , Endoscopy/standards , Equipment Design/standards , Humans , Mastoidectomy/instrumentation , Microsurgery/instrumentation , Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures/instrumentation , Neurosurgical Procedures/instrumentation , Neurotology/standards , Otolaryngology/standards , Standard of Care/standards , United States
10.
Curr Opin Urol ; 31(4): 340-345, 2021 07 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1219714

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The purpose of this review is to evaluate the risk of intraoperative aerosol viral transmission and the impact of updated COVID-19 guidelines on minimally invasive surgery (MIS) in Austria. RECENT FINDINGS: The current literature does not support the risk of intraoperative viral transmission nor does it suggest a harm of minimally invasive procedures in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. However, medical societies mostly adopted a precautionary approach with a focus on protective measures. Austrian surgeons considered MIS safe during the pandemic and Austria managed to keep the initial outbreak in control. Yet, MIS programs were still affected due to the postponements of elective procedures and switches to other methods by some surgeons. SUMMARY: The postponement and cancellation of MIS caused complexities in health-care delivery in Austria, whilst the evidence to substantiate this precautionary approach is missing. It must be noted, both the guidelines and our review are limited by the scarcity of evidence. In further consequence, regional factors should be considered while taking precautions. Specific studies on the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus type 2 transmission risk during MIS are urgently needed.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Pandemics , Aerosols , Austria , Humans , Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures , SARS-CoV-2
11.
Int J Clin Pract ; 75(8): e14309, 2021 Aug.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1209598

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: The beta-coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic has changed the clinical approach of 93% of urologists worldwide, and this situation has affected the use of laparoscopic and robot-assisted laparoscopic methods, which are known as minimally invasive surgery (MIS). This study aimed to determine the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on MIS in urology practice at national level. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: A total of 234 urologists in Turkey participated in an online survey between August 22 and September 23, 2020. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Descriptive statistical analyses were conducted to determine the participants' demographic characteristics and responses to multiple-choice questions. RESULTS: While 54% of urologists stated that they were concerned about the possibility that the patients planned to undergo MIS were carrying COVID-19 or false-negative for the virus, 51% considered that open surgery was safer than MIS in this regard. The pandemic led to a difference in the preferences of 40% of the urologists in relation to open or MIS methods, and during the pandemic, 39% of the urologists always directed their patients to open surgery. It was determined that during the pandemic, there was a statistical decrease in the intensity and weekly application of MIS methods among all surgical procedures compared to the pre-pandemic (P < .001 and P < .001, respectively). MIS was preferred for oncological operations by 97.3% of the urologists during the pandemic, with the most performed operation being radical nephrectomy (90.7%). Among oncological operations, radical prostatectomy was most frequently postponed. To prevent virus transmission during MIS, 44% of the urologists reported that they always used an additional evacuation system and 52% took additional precautions. There were a total of 27 healthcare workers who took part in MIS and tested positive for COVID-19 after the operation. CONCLUSIONS: Although the number of operations has decreased during the ongoing pandemic, MIS is a method that can be preferred due to its limited contamination and mortality in urology practice provided that safety measures are taken and guideline recommendations are followed.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Urology , Humans , Male , Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2 , Turkey , Urologic Surgical Procedures
12.
Ann Surg Oncol ; 28(9): 4816-4826, 2021 Sep.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1190139

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in unparalleled changes to patient care, including the suspension of cancer surgery. Concerns regarding COVID-19-related risks to patients and healthcare workers with the re-introduction of major complex minimally invasive and open surgery have been raised. This study examines the COVID-19 related risks to patients and healthcare workers following the re-introduction of major oesophago-gastric (EG) surgery. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was an international, multi-centre, observational study of consecutive patients treated by open and minimally invasive oesophagectomy and gastrectomy for malignant or benign disease. Patients were recruited from nine European centres serving regions with a high population incidence of COVID-19 between 1 May and 1 July 2020. The primary endpoint was 30-day COVID-19-related mortality. All staff involved in the operative care of patients were invited to complete a health-related survey to assess the incidence of COVID-19 in this group. RESULTS: In total, 158 patients were included in the study (71 oesophagectomy, 82 gastrectomy). Overall, 87 patients (57%) underwent MIS (59 oesophagectomy, 28 gastrectomy). A total of 403 staff were eligible for inclusion, of whom 313 (78%) completed the health survey. Approaches to mitigate against the risks of COVID-19 for patients and staff varied amongst centres. No patients developed COVID-19 in the post-operative period. Two healthcare workers developed self-limiting COVID-19. CONCLUSIONS: Precautions to minimise the risk of COVID-19 infection have enabled the safe re-introduction of minimally invasive and open EG surgery for both patients and staff. Further studies are necessary to determine the minimum requirements for mitigations against COVID-19.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Pandemics , Health Personnel , Humans , Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures , SARS-CoV-2
14.
J Med Internet Res ; 23(3): e23970, 2021 03 16.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1140614

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The unprecedented COVID-19 pandemic has brought drastic changes to the field of plastic surgery. It is critical for stakeholders in this field to identify the changes in public interest in plastic procedures to be adequately prepared to meet the challenges of the pandemic. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to examine tweets related to the public interest in plastic procedures during the COVID-19 pandemic and to help stakeholders in the field of plastic surgery adjust their practices and sustain their operations during the current difficult situation of the pandemic. METHODS: Using a web crawler, 73,963 publicly accessible tweets about the most common cosmetic surgical and minimally invasive plastic procedures were collected. The tweets were grouped into three phases, and the tweeting frequencies and Google Trends indices were examined. Tweeting frequency, sentiment, and word frequency analyses were performed with Python modules. RESULTS: Tweeting frequency increased by 24.0% in phase 2 and decreased by 9.1% in phase 3. Tweets about breast augmentation, liposuction, and abdominoplasty ("tummy tuck") procedures consecutively increased over the three phases of the pandemic. Interest in Botox and chemical peel procedures revived first when the lockdown was lifted. The COVID-19 pandemic was associated with a negative impact on public sentiment about plastic procedures. The word frequency pattern significantly changed after phase 1 and then remained relatively stable. CONCLUSIONS: According to Twitter data, the public maintained their interest in plastic procedures during the COVID-19 pandemic. Stakeholders should consider refocusing on breast augmentation, liposuction, and abdominoplasty procedures during the current phase of the pandemic. In the case of a second wave of COVID-19, stakeholders should prepare for a temporary surge of Botox and chemical peel procedures.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures/statistics & numerical data , Reconstructive Surgical Procedures/statistics & numerical data , Social Media/statistics & numerical data , COVID-19/virology , Communicable Disease Control/methods , Humans , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification
16.
Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol ; 277(7): 2133-2135, 2020 Jul.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1049646

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: The role of tracheostomy in COVID-19-related ARDS is unknown. Nowadays, there is no clear indication regarding the timing of tracheostomy in these patients. METHODS: We describe our synergic experience between ENT and ICU Departments at University Hospital of Modena underlining some controversial aspects that would be worth discussing tracheostomies in these patients. During the last 2 weeks, we performed 28 tracheostomies on patients with ARDS due to COVID-19 infection who were treated with IMV. RESULTS: No differences between percutaneous and surgical tracheostomy in terms of timing and no case of team virus infection. CONCLUSION: In our experience, tracheostomy should be performed only in selected patients within 7- and 14-day orotracheal intubation.


Subject(s)
Coronavirus Infections/diagnosis , Intubation, Intratracheal , Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures/methods , Pneumonia, Viral/diagnosis , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/therapy , Tracheostomy/methods , Adult , Betacoronavirus , COVID-19 , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Humans , Intensive Care Units , Male , Middle Aged , Pandemics/prevention & control , Patient Care Team , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/etiology , SARS-CoV-2 , Treatment Outcome
17.
Surg Endosc ; 35(6): 2428-2439, 2021 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1047245

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Concerns regarding the aerosolized transmission of SARS-CoV-2 via SS have caused significant apprehension among surgeons related to the use of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) during the COVID19 pandemic. While a limited number of studies have previously demonstrated the presence of viral material in SS, no comprehensive systematic review exists on the subject of viral transmission in SS. Methods A systematic review of the literature was conducted as per PRISMA guidelines. MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL databases were searched for publications reporting the primary outcome of the presence of viral particles in SS and secondary outcomes of indices suggesting transmission of viable virus particles in SS producing clinically important infection. All human, animal, and in vitro studies which used accepted analytic techniques for viral detection were included. A meta-analysis was not complete due to methodologic heterogeneity and inconsistent reporting of outcomes of interest. RESULTS: 23 publications addressed the presence of viral components in SS, and 19 (83%) found the presence of viral particles in SS. 21 publications additionally studied the ability of SS to induce clinically relevant infection in host cells, with 9 (43%) demonstrating potential for viral transmission. CONCLUSION: Evidence exists for viral transmission via SS. However, HPV remains the only virus with documented transmission to humans via SS. While meaningful translation into practical guidelines during the COVID pandemic remains challenging, no evidence exists to suggest increased risk in MIS.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/transmission , Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures/adverse effects , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Smoke/analysis , Animals , COVID-19/virology , DNA, Viral/isolation & purification , Humans , Infectious Disease Transmission, Patient-to-Professional , Pandemics , RNA, Viral/isolation & purification , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , Smoke Inhalation Injury/epidemiology , Smoke Inhalation Injury/virology
18.
JAMA Surg ; 156(3): 221-228, 2021 03 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1028760

ABSTRACT

Importance: Postdischarge video-based virtual visits are a growing aspect of surgical care and have dramatically increased in the setting of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Objective: To evaluate the outcomes of all-cause 30-day hospital encounter proportion among patients who have a postdischarge video-based virtual visit follow-up compared with in-person follow-up. Design, Setting, and Participants: Randomized, active, controlled noninferiority trial in an urban setting, including patients from a small community hospital and a large, tertiary care hospital. Patients who underwent minimally invasive appendectomy or cholecystectomy by a group of surgeons who cover emergency general surgery at these 2 hospitals were included. Patients undergoing elective and nonelective procedures were included. Interventions: Patients were randomized in a 2:1 fashion to video-based virtual visit or in-person visit. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome is the percentage of patients with 30-day hospital encounter, and we hypothesized that there would not be a significant increase in the 30-day hospital encounter proportion for patients who receive video-based virtual postdischarge care compared with patients who receive standard (in-person) care. Hospital encounter includes emergency department visit, observation, or inpatient admission. Results: A total of 1645 patients were screened; 289 patients were randomized to the virtual group and 143 to the in-person group. Fifty-three patients crossed over to the in-person follow-up group. The percentage of patients who had a hospital encounter was noninferior for virtual visits (12.8% vs 13.3% for in-person, Δ 0.5% with 1-sided 95% CI, -∞ to 5.2%). The amount of time patients spent with the clinician (mean of 8.4 minutes virtual vs 7.8 minutes in-person; P = .30) was not different, but the median overall postoperative visit time was 27.5 minutes shorter (95% CI, -33.5 to -24.0). Conclusions and Relevance: Postdischarge video-based virtual visits did not increase hospital encounter proportions and provided shorter overall time commitment but equal time with the surgical team member. This information will help surgeons and patients feel more confident in using video-based virtual visits. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03258177.


Subject(s)
Aftercare , Appendectomy , Cholecystectomy , Telemedicine , Adult , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19/transmission , Cross-Over Studies , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures , Patient Discharge , Videoconferencing , Young Adult
19.
Dermatol Ther ; 33(5): e13561, 2020 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1005569

ABSTRACT

The pandemic of COVID-19 has captivated more than 3 million people across the globe affecting the dermatology practice as well. Due to the novel nature of the virus and concomitant lack of research, standard guidelines have not been set in place regarding the procedures. Currently, due to fear and spread of coronavirus aesthetic practice has taken a seat back. Dermatologic surgeon/aesthetician have to be prepared for the forthcoming alterations in the practice and adjust to the necessary precautionary methods. This articles aims to prepare dermatologist for the upcoming difficulties and precautions to be taken for conducting procedures in amidst of coronavirus.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Dermatology , SARS-CoV-2 , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19/transmission , Disinfection , Humans , Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures , N95 Respirators , Ventilation
20.
A A Pract ; 14(14): e01371, 2020 Dec 21.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-992617

ABSTRACT

Respiratory failure in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients with prolonged endotracheal intubation may require a tracheostomy and percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tube placement to facilitate recovery. Both techniques are considered high-risk aerosol-generating procedures and present a heightened risk of exposure to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) for operating room personnel. We designed, simulated, and implemented a portable, continuous negative pressure, operative field barrier system using standard equipment available in hospitals to enhance health care provider safety during high-risk aerosol-generating procedures.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/complications , COVID-19/transmission , Endoscopy, Gastrointestinal/methods , Gastrostomy/methods , Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures/methods , Tracheostomy/methods , Aerosols , Air Pressure , COVID-19/prevention & control , Enteral Nutrition , Filtration , Humans , Infectious Disease Transmission, Patient-to-Professional/prevention & control , Male , Middle Aged , Operating Rooms , Patient Isolation
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...