Performance-optimized otoplasty.

OBJECTIVES: This study proposes a new surgical alternative for the most common deformity in the ears, the so-called "protruding/prominent ears", which is a condition that affects 5% of the Caucasian population (Goulart et al. in Rev Bras Cir Plast 26:602-607, 2011). This technique comes with the benefits of reduced surgical time, shallow learning curve, and a low revision rate. METHODS: We studied a total of 213 patients with an indication for otoplasty from January 2020 to January 2021. Women made up 65% of the study population, while men made up 35%, with an average age of 21 years, the youngest being 7 years of age. The technique presented here corrects all the deformities that cause protruding ears and can be performed together with other ear surgeries, such as surgical treatment of macrotia and lobuloplasty. All surgeries were performed in an outpatient setting under local anesthesia and sedation. RESULTS: All surgeries followed a performance-optimized protocol, with an average total surgical time of 45 min for a bilateral approach. Revision surgery was needed in 2% of cases, with the most frequent complaint being asymmetry in the upper third of the ears. The complication rate was approximately 7.5%, with 1 case of hematoma, 1 case of mild infection, 2 cases of altered ear sensitivity, 3 cases of keloid scar formation, 6 cases of asymmetry in the upper third of the ears, and 3 cases of irregularities or spikes in the antihelix cartilage. Patient satisfaction was measured using the McDowell/Wright Objectives and Outcome Index (McDowell in Plast Reconstr Surg 41:17-27). CONCLUSION: The proposed performance technique is a viable alternative to optimize the surgical time of otoplasty in an outpatient setting. This technique can be performed together with other corrective ear surgeries, has a shallow learning curve, and has a low revision rate. LEVEL IV: Evidence obtained from multiple time series with or without the intervention, such as case studies.

Safety alert for hospital environments and health professional: chlorhexidine is ineffective for coronavirus.

An alarming fact was revealed by recent publications concerning disinfectants: chlorhexidine digluconate is ineffective for disinfecting surfaces contaminated by the new coronavirus. This is a finding that requires immediate disclosure since this substance is widely used for the disinfection of hands and forearms of surgeons and auxiliaries and in the antisepsis of patients in minimally invasive procedures commonly performed in hospital environments. The objective of this study is to compare the different disinfectants used for disinfection on several surfaces, in a review of worldwide works. Scientific studies were researched in the BVS (Virtual Health Library), PubMed, Medline, and ANVISA (National Health Surveillance Agency) databases. The following agents were studied: alcohol 62-71%, hydrogen peroxide 0.5%, sodium hypochlorite 0.1%, benzalkonium chloride 0.05-0.2%, povidone-iodine 10%, and chlorhexidine digluconate 0.02%, on metal, aluminum, wood, paper, glass, plastic, PVC, silicone, latex (gloves), disposable gowns, ceramic, and Teflon surfaces. Studies have shown that chlorhexidine digluconate is ineffective for inactivating some coronavirus subtypes, suggesting that it is also ineffective to the new coronavirus.

Safety alert for hospital environments and health professional: chlorhexidine is ineffective for coronavirus

SUMMARY An alarming fact was revealed by recent publications concerning disinfectants: chlorhexidine digluconate is ineffective for disinfecting surfaces contaminated by the new coronavirus. This is a finding that requires immediate disclosure since this substance is widely used for the disinfection of hands and forearms of surgeons and auxiliaries and in the antisepsis of patients in minimally invasive procedures commonly performed in hospital environments. The objective of this study is to compare the different disinfectants used for disinfection on several surfaces, in a review of worldwide works. Scientific studies were researched in the BVS (Virtual Health Library), PubMed, Medline, and ANVISA (National Health Surveillance Agency) databases. The following agents were studied: alcohol 62-71%, hydrogen peroxide 0.5%, sodium hypochlorite 0.1%, benzalkonium chloride 0.05-0.2%, povidone-iodine 10%, and chlorhexidine digluconate 0.02%, on metal, aluminum, wood, paper, glass, plastic, PVC, silicone, latex (gloves), disposable gowns, ceramic, and Teflon surfaces. Studies have shown that chlorhexidine digluconate is ineffective for inactivating some coronavirus subtypes, suggesting that it is also ineffective to the new coronavirus.

RESUMO Um dado alarmante revelado por publicações a respeito dos agentes desinfetantes: o digluconato de clorexidina é ineficaz para desinfecção de superfícies contaminadas por coronavírus. Trata-se de uma constatação que reclama imediata divulgação, uma vez que essa substância é amplamente usada para degermação de mãos e antebraços dos cirurgiões e auxiliares e na antissepsia dos pacientes, em procedimentos minimamente invasivos, comumente em ambientes hospitalares. O objetivo deste trabalho foi comparar os diferentes desinfetantes usados para desinfecção em diversas superfícies em revisão de trabalhos mundiais. Foram pesquisados trabalhos científicos na BVS (Biblioteca Virtual de Saúde), PubMed, Medline e Anvisa (Agência Nacional de Vigilância Sanitária). Foram estudados os seguintes agentes: álcool 62-71%, peróxido de hidrogênio 0,5%, hipoclorito de sódio 0,1%, cloreto de benzancônio 0,05-0,2%, iodo povidina 10% e digluconato de clorexidina 0,02%, em superfícies de metal, alumínio, madeira, papel, vidro, plástico, PVC, silicone, látex (luvas), avental descartável, cerâmica e teflon. Os estudos demonstraram que o digluconato de clorexidina é ineficaz para a inativação de alguns subtipos de coronavírus, sugerindo que também seja ineficaz contra o novo coronavírus.