The Debate: What Are Aerosol-Generating Procedures in Dentistry? A Rapid Review.

INTRODUCTION: This article aims to review the current national and international dental guidance produced during the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic to identify the level of consensus on aerosol-generating dental procedures (AGDPs). The outcomes intend to encourage increased collaboration with respect to dental guidelines in relation to the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, as well as to improve decision making and safety for dental patients and staff. METHODS: This rapid review was conducted by 2 authors (MKV and KD), with the support of a third author (SD), to assess current guidelines related to dental AGDPs. This streamlined review approach allowed synthesis of data in an efficient manner in the rapidly evolving environment associated with the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. RESULTS: The findings identified 1) a lack of consistency in reporting which procedures were deemed an AGDP; 2) that high-speed handpieces, air-water syringes, and mechanical scalers were consistently considered high-risk AGDPs; 3) a lack of consensus on the risk of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) transmission with the use of slow-speed handpieces; 4) a general agreement, when described, that rubber dam and high-volume evacuation can significantly reduce aerosol production; and 5) a lack of consistency in reporting whether procedures constitute a low, moderate, or high risk of COVID-19 transmission. The findings are discussed in relation to the guidance and future recommendations. CONCLUSION: It is recommended that future published guidance should indicate the risk stratification (low/moderate/high) of each procedure/exposure in a standardized international approach. KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER STATEMENT: The results of this rapid review can be used by clinicians to increase their awareness of international guidance on aerosol-generating procedures in dentistry. It will also encourage those publishing future guidance to provide an internationally standardized, risk-stratified approach to describing aerosol-generating procedures. Currently, it allows clinicians to consider aerosol-generating procedures as a risk spectrum.

The provision of surgical tracheostomies by maxillofacial surgeons in the UK: time for a dedicated tracheostomy team?

Surgical tracheostomy is a commonly provided service by surgical teams for patients in intensive care where percutaneous dilatational tracheostomy is contraindicated. A number of factors may interfere with its provision on shared emergency operating lists, potentially prolonging the stay in intensive care. We undertook a two-part project to examine the factors that might delay provision of surgical tracheostomy in the intensive care unit. The first part was a prospective audit of practice within the University Hospital Coventry. This was followed by a telephone survey of oral and maxillofacial surgery units throughout the UK. In the intensive care unit at University Hospital Coventry, of 39 referrals, 21 (53.8%) were delayed beyond 24 hours. There was a mean (standard deviation) time to delay of 2.2 days (0.9 days) and the most common cause of delay was surgeon decision, accounting for 13 (61.9%) delays. From a telephone survey of 140 units nationwide, 40 (28.4%) were regularly involved in the provision of surgical tracheostomies for intensive care and 17 (42.5%) experienced delays beyond 24 hours, owing to a combination of theatre availability (76.5%) and surgeon availability (47.1%). There is case for having a dedicated tracheostomy team and provisional theatre slot to optimise patient outcomes and reduce delays. We aim to implement such a move within our unit and audit the outcomes prospectively following this change.