| Property | Value |
|---|
|
?:abstract
|
-
INTRODUCTION: Based on current knowledge, the SARS-CoV-2 is transmitted via droplet, aerosols and smear infection. Due to a confirmed high virus load in the upper respiratory tract of COVID-19 patients, there is a potential risk of infection for health care professionals when performing surgical procedures in this area. The aim of this study was the semi-quantitative comparison of ENT-typical interventions in the head and neck area with regard to particle and aerosol generation. These data can potentially contribute to a better risk assessment of aerogenic SARS-CoV-2-transmission caused by medical procedures. MATERIALS AND METHODS: As a model, a test chamber was created to examine various typical surgical interventions on porcine soft and hard tissues. Simultaneously, particle and aerosol release were recorded and semi-quantitatively evaluated time-dependently. Five typical surgical intervention techniques (mechanical stress with a passive instrument with and without suction, CO(2) laser treatment, drilling and bipolar electrocoagulation) were examined and compared regarding resulting particle release. RESULTS: Neither aerosols nor particles could be detected during mechanical manipulation with and without suction. The use of laser technique showed considerable formation of aerosol. During drilling, mainly solid tissue particles were scattered into the environment (18.2 ± 15.7 particles/cm(2)/min). The strongest particle release was determined during electrocoagulation (77.2 ± 30.4 particles/cm(2)/min). The difference in particle release between electrocoagulation and drilling was significant (p < 0.05), while particle diameter was comparable. In addition, relevant amounts of aerosol were released during electrocoagulation (79.6% of the maximum flue gas emission during laser treatment). DISCUSSION: Our results demonstrated clear differences comparing surgical model interventions. In contrast to sole mechanical stress with passive instruments, all active instruments (laser, drilling and electrocoagulation) released particles and aerosols. Assuming that particle and aerosol exposure is clinically correlated to the risk of SARS-CoV-2-transmission from the patient to the physician, a potential risk for health care professionals for infection cannot be excluded. Especially electrocautery is frequently used for emergency treatment, e.g., nose bleeding. The use of this technique may, therefore, be considered particularly critical in potentially infectious patients. Alternative methods may be given preference and personal protective equipment should be used consequently.
|
|
?:creator
|
|
|
?:doi
|
-
10.1007/s00405-020-06330-y
|
|
?:doi
|
|
|
?:journal
|
-
Eur_Arch_Otorhinolaryngol
|
|
?:license
|
|
|
?:pdf_json_files
|
-
document_parses/pdf_json/cf8e12542d0048c5fa0bf0d3ffbb243e5934aa4d.json
|
|
?:pmc_json_files
|
-
document_parses/pmc_json/PMC7476645.xml.json
|
|
?:pmcid
|
|
|
?:pmid
|
|
|
?:pmid
|
|
|
?:publication_isRelatedTo_Disease
|
|
|
?:sha_id
|
|
|
?:source
|
|
|
?:title
|
-
In vitro comparison of surgical techniques in times of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic: electrocautery generates more droplets and aerosol than laser surgery or drilling
|
|
?:type
|
|
|
?:year
|
|
![[This page as RDF]](https://research.tib.eu/covid-19/static/rdf-icon.gif){kind=icon}