RESUMEN
Rehabilitation in Low level maxillectomy cases has plethora of options right from local flaps to microvascular flaps. Subsequent to flap surgery, a maxillary dental rehabilitation can be demanding and a fixed or removable prosthesis is obligatory to provide them with near-normal function and aesthetics. Unlike the original ZIP flaps which were dedicated to microvascular flaps, we present here our unique experience with ZIP-Temporalis flap specifically for rehabilitation for patients of CAM (covid associated mucormycosis), its methods, advantages and limitations.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Numerous barrier devices have recently been developed and rapidly deployed worldwide in an effort to protect health care workers (HCWs) from exposure to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) during high-risk procedures. However, only a few studies have examined their impact on the dispersion of droplets and aerosols, which are both thought to be significant contributors to the spread of COVID-19. METHODS: Two commonly used barrier devices, an intubation box and a clear plastic intubation sheet, were evaluated using a physiologically accurate cough simulator. Aerosols were modeled using a commercially available fog machine, and droplets were modeled with fluorescein dye. Both particles were propelled by the cough simulator in a simulated intubation environment. Data were captured by high-speed flash photography, and aerosol and droplet dispersion were assessed qualitatively with and without a barrier in place. RESULTS: Droplet contamination after a simulated cough was seemingly contained by both barrier devices. Simulated aerosol escaped the barriers and flowed toward the head of the bed. During barrier removal, simulated aerosol trapped underneath was released and propelled toward the HCW at the head of the bed. Usage of the intubation sheet concentrated droplets onto a smaller area. If no barrier was used, positioning the patient in slight reverse Trendelenburg directed aerosols away from the HCW located at the head of the bed. CONCLUSIONS: Our observations imply that intubation boxes and sheets may reduce HCW exposure to droplets, but they both may merely redirect aerosolized particles, potentially resulting in increased exposure to aerosols in certain circumstances. Aerosols may remain within the barrier device after a cough, and manipulation of the box may release them. Patients should be positioned to facilitate intubation, but slight reverse Trendelenburg may direct infectious aerosols away from the HCW. Novel barrier devices should be used with caution, and further validation studies are necessary.
Asunto(s)
COVID-19/terapia , Control de Infecciones/instrumentación , Transmisión de Enfermedad Infecciosa de Paciente a Profesional/prevención & control , Exposición por Inhalación/prevención & control , Intubación Intratraqueal , Exposición Profesional/prevención & control , Equipo de Protección Personal , Aerosoles , COVID-19/transmisión , Humanos , Exposición por Inhalación/efectos adversos , Intubación Intratraqueal/efectos adversos , Maniquíes , Ensayo de Materiales , Exposición Profesional/efectos adversos , Salud LaboralRESUMEN
SUMMARY STATEMENT: The COVID-19 pandemic threatened to overwhelm the medical system of New York City, and the threat of ventilator shortages was real. Using high-fidelity simulation, a variety of solutions were tested to solve the problem of ventilator shortages including innovative designs for safely splitting ventilators, converting noninvasive ventilators to invasive ventilators, and testing and improving of ventilators created by outside companies. Simulation provides a safe environment for testing of devices and protocols before use on patients and should be vital in the preparation for emergencies such as the COVID-19 pandemic.
Asunto(s)
COVID-19/epidemiología , Respiración Artificial/métodos , Entrenamiento Simulado/organización & administración , Ventiladores Mecánicos/provisión & distribución , Humanos , Pandemias , SARS-CoV-2RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: During the COVID-19 pandemic, ventilator sharing was suggested to increase availability of mechanical ventilation. The safety and feasibility of ventilator sharing is unknown. METHODS: A single ventilator in pressure control mode was used with flow control valves to simultaneously ventilate two patients with different lung compliances. The system was first evaluated using high-fidelity human patient simulator mannequins and then tested for 1 h in two pairs of COVID-19 patients with acute respiratory failure. Patients were matched on positive end-expiratory pressure, fractional inspired oxygen tension, and respiratory rate. Tidal volume and peak airway pressure (PMAX) were recorded from each patient using separate independent spirometers and arterial blood gas samples drawn at 0, 30, and 60 min. The authors assessed acid-base status, oxygenation, tidal volume, and PMAX for each patient. Stability was assessed by calculating the coefficient of variation. RESULTS: The valves performed as expected in simulation, providing a stable tidal volume of 400 ml each to two mannequins with compliance ratios varying from 20:20 to 20:90 ml/cm H2O. The system was then tested in two pairs of patients. Pair 1 was a 49-yr-old woman, ideal body weight 46 kg, and a 55-yr-old man, ideal body weight 64 kg, with lung compliance 27 ml/cm H2O versus 35 ml/cm H2O. The coefficient of variation for tidal volume was 0.2 to 1.7%, and for PMAX 0 to 1.1%. Pair 2 was a 32-yr-old man, ideal body weight 62 kg, and a 56-yr-old woman, ideal body weight 46 kg, with lung compliance 12 ml/cm H2O versus 21 ml/cm H2O. The coefficient of variation for tidal volume was 0.4 to 5.6%, and for PMAX 0 to 2.1%. CONCLUSIONS: Differential ventilation using a single ventilator is feasible. Flow control valves enable delivery of stable tidal volume and PMAX similar to those provided by individual ventilators.