Doing Our Part to Conserve Resources: Determining Whether All Personal Protective Equipment Is Mandatory for Closed Reduction and Percutaneous Pinning of Supracondylar Humeral Fractures.

BACKGROUND: Closed reduction and percutaneous pinning (CRPP) of supracondylar humeral fractures is one of the most common procedures performed in pediatric orthopaedics. The use of full, standard preparation and draping with standard personal protective equipment (PPE) may not be necessary during this procedure. This is of particular interest in the current climate as we face unprecedented PPE shortages due to the current COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: This is a retrospective chart review of 1,270 patients treated with CRPP of a supracondylar humeral fracture at 2 metropolitan pediatric centers by 10 fellowship-trained pediatric orthopaedic surgeons. One surgeon in the group did not wear a mask when performing CRPP of supracondylar humeral fractures, and multiple surgeons in the group utilized a semisterile preparation technique (no sterile gown or drapes). Infectious outcomes were compared between 2 groups: full sterile preparation and semisterile preparation. We additionally analyzed a subgroup of patients who had semisterile preparation without surgeon mask use. Hospital cost data were used to estimate annual cost savings with the adoption of the semisterile technique. RESULTS: In this study, 1,270 patients who underwent CRPP of a supracondylar humeral fracture and met inclusion criteria were identified. There were 3 deep infections (0.24%). These infections all occurred in the group using full sterile preparation and surgical masks. No clinically relevant pin-track infections were noted. There were no known surgeon occupational exposures to bodily fluid. It is estimated that national adoption of this technique in the United States could save between 18,612 and 22,162 gowns and masks with costs savings of $3.7 million to $4.4 million annually. CONCLUSIONS: We currently face critical shortages of PPE due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Data from this large series suggest that a semisterile technique during CRPP of supracondylar humeral fractures is a safe practice. We anticipate that this could preserve approximately 20,000 gowns and masks in the United States over the next year. Physicians are encouraged to reevaluate their daily practice to identify safe opportunities for resource preservation. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

The microscope drape method to reduce aerosolisation during endoscopic sinus and skull base surgery in the COVID era. How i do it.

BACKGROUND: Otolaryngologists are faced with concerning challenges since the onset of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic due to significant risk of occupational infection. Transmission can happen during intraoperative exposure to viral particles carried by droplets or aerosols. Endoscopic sinus and skull base surgery are notable for causing aerosolisation, putting healthcare staff at substantial risk. METHOD: We describe the creation of a tight-seal tent from a microscope drape covering the operative field and the operator's hands with the aim to contain aerosols during transnasal endoscopic surgery. CONCLUSION: The microscope drape technique is a simple barrier measure that could potentially improve safety during endoscopic procedures.

'POLIDON' Approach-A Novel Solution for the ENT & Skull Base Surgeons in COVID-19 era.

Health care providers (HCP) of ENT and Skull base surgery are highly vulnerable and mostly infected by novel coronavirus as they have to examine and perform procedures directly in oral cavity, oropharynx, nose, nasopharynx, where coronavirus remains in plenty. ENT & Skull base surgeons need to do several aerosol generating procedures (AGP). Most of the endoscopic and microscopic ENT & skull base surgery are AGP; like-mastoid surgery, sinus surgery, surgery of pituitary, tympanomastoid paraganglioma, temporal bone malignancy, tracheostomy etc. All of we know, COVID negative by RT-PCR test is not always COVID negative. In COVID-19 pandemic-routine, even cancer surgeries are avoided or postponed for the sake of safety of HCPs. Moreover, in case of surgical emergency there's no way to refuse a patient for not having a report of COVID test. We thought about neutralizing or destroying the novel coronavirus from it's route of entry zone, as well as preventing aerosol to be transmitted in the air of OT. We designed a novel approach, i.e. 'POLIDON' (POLIDON = Polythene + Povidone Iodine), which can be the solution for these patients as well as surgeons or HCPs of above mentioned specialties. Use of Povidone Iodine as mouthwash and nasal spray or irrigation for both patient and HCPs prior to surgery is proposed. Then, use of simple polythene as barrier drape of patient or operative area for prevention of spread of aerosol in OT during surgery is the other component. With the POLIDON' approach-all these ENT & skull base surgeries can be done with more safety and confidence.

Aerosol Dispersion During Mastoidectomy and Custom Mitigation Strategies for Otologic Surgery in the COVID-19 Era.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate small-particle aerosolization from mastoidectomy relevant to potential viral transmission and to test source-control mitigation strategies. STUDY DESIGN: Cadaveric simulation. SETTING: Surgical simulation laboratory. METHODS: An optical particle size spectrometer was used to quantify 1- to 10-µm aerosols 30 cm from mastoid cortex drilling. Two barrier drapes were evaluated: OtoTent1, a drape sheet affixed to the microscope; OtoTent2, a custom-structured drape that enclosed the surgical field with specialized ports. RESULTS: Mastoid drilling without a barrier drape, with or without an aerosol-scavenging second suction, generated large amounts of 1- to 10-µm particulate. Drilling under OtoTent1 generated a high density of particles when compared with baseline environmental levels (P < .001, U = 107). By contrast, when drilling was conducted under OtoTent2, mean particle density remained at baseline. Adding a second suction inside OtoTent1 or OtoTent2 kept particle density at baseline levels. Significant aerosols were released upon removal of OtoTent1 or OtoTent2 despite a 60-second pause before drape removal after drilling (P < .001, U = 0, n = 10, 12; P < .001, U = 2, n = 12, 12, respectively). However, particle density did not increase above baseline when a second suction and a pause before removal were both employed. CONCLUSIONS: Mastoidectomy without a barrier, even when a second suction was added, generated substantial 1- to 10-µm aerosols. During drilling, large amounts of aerosols above baseline levels were detected with OtoTent1 but not OtoTent2. For both drapes, a second suction was an effective mitigation strategy during drilling. Last, the combination of a second suction and a pause before removal prevented aerosol escape during the removal of either drape.

Measurement of airborne particle exposure during simulated tracheal intubation using various proposed aerosol containment devices during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The COVID-19 pandemic has led to the production of novel devices intended to protect airway managers during the aerosol-generating procedure of tracheal intubation. Using an in-situ simulation model, we evaluated laryngoscopist exposure of airborne particles sized 0.3 - 5.0 microns using five aerosol containment devices (aerosol box; sealed box with and without suction; vertical drape; and horizontal drape) compared with no aerosol containment device. Nebulised saline was used as the aerosol-generating model for 300 s, at which point, the devices were removed to assess particle spread. Primary outcome was the quantity and size of airborne particles measured at the level of the laryngoscopist's head at 30, 60, 120 and 300 s, as well as 360 s (60 s after device removal). Airborne particles sizes of 0.3, 0.5, 1.0, 2.5 and 5.0 microns were quantified using an electronic airborne particle counter. Compared with no device use, the sealed intubation box with suction resulted in a decrease in 0.3, 0.5, 1.0 and 2.5 micron, but not 5.0 micron, particle exposure over all time-periods (p = 0.003 for all time periods). Compared with no device use, the aerosol box showed an increase in 1.0, 2.5 and 5.0 micron airborne particle exposure at 300 s (p = 0.002, 0.008, 0.002, respectively). Compared with no device use, neither horizontal nor vertical drapes showed any difference in any particle size exposure at any time. Finally, when the patient coughed, use of the aerosol box resulted in a marked increase in airborne particle exposure compared with other devices or no device use. In conclusion, novel devices intended to protect the laryngoscopist require objective testing to ensure they are fit for purpose and do not result in increased airborne particle exposure.