Implementation of Preoperative Screening Protocols in Otolaryngology During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Eco-Friendly and COVID-19 Friendly? Decreasing the Carbon Footprint of the Operating Room in the COVID-19 Era

Surgery is one of the most energy-intensive branches of healthcare. Although the COVID-19 pandemic has reduced surgical volumes, infection control protocols have increased the ecological footprint of surgery owing to the extensive use of personal protective equipment, sanitation, testing and isolation resources. The burden of environmental diseases requiring surgical care, the international commitment towards environmental sustainability and the global efforts to return to the pre-pandemic surgical workflow call for action towards climate-friendly surgery. The authors have searched the peer-reviewed and gray literature for clinical studies, reports and guidelines related to the ecological footprint of surgical care and the available solutions and frameworks to reduce it. Numerous studies concede that surgery is associated with a high rate of energy utilization and waste generation that is comparable to major non-medical sources of pollution. Recommendations and research questions outlining environmentally sustainable models of surgical practices span from sanitation and air quality improvement systems to the allocation of non-recyclable consumables and energy-efficient surgical planning. The latter are particularly relevant to infection control protocols for COVID-19. Paving the way towards climate-friendly surgery is a worthy endeavor with a major potential to improve surgical practice and outcomes in the long term.

Inpatient Otolaryngology Consultations and COVID-19: The Surge and Lasting Effects at an Urban, Academic Institution

Objective: This study aims to examine the lasting effects of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic on inpatient otolaryngology consultations. Methods: In a retrospective analysis, inpatient otolaryngology consultations at an urban, academic tertiary care center were reviewed over the course of 2 years (Jun 2019-Jun 2021). The consultations were categorized by time period based on the local data for COVID-19 hospitalizations and deaths as follows: pre-COVID (Jun 2019-Feb 2020), Surge 1 (Mar 2020-May 2020), Surge 2 (Oct 2020-Jan 2021), and Post Surge (Mar 2021-Jun 2021). Results: A total of 897 patients undergoing an inpatient otolaryngology consultation across all 4 time periods were included for analysis. The average consultations per day was 1.67 ± 0.24 in pre-COVID times, and dropped acutely to 0.86 ± 0.33 consultations per day during Surge 1. The consultation volume was not statistically different from pre-COVID levels during Surge 2 (1.33 ± 0.35) and Post Surge (1.60 ± 0.20). Reason for consultation and procedures performed did not vary significantly between pre-COVID times and Post Surge, except that consultation for postoperative complaint was less frequent in Post Surge (4.8% vs 1.0%, P = .02). More patients had been screened with rapid antigen COVID testing in Post Surge versus Surge 1 (20.1% vs 7.6%, P = .04). Conclusions: Inpatient otolaryngology consultation volumes, indications, and procedures performed at an urban, academic institution returned to pre-COVID levels after being significantly impacted during Surge 1.

Facial Trauma During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Study Design

Retrospective cohort study.

Objective

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the impact of the COVID-19 global pandemic on the regional trends in facial trauma at a tertiary care, level 1 trauma center in Central New York.

Methods

The study sample was derived from the population of patients who presented with facial trauma to the emergency department at the Downtown and/or Community Campuses of SUNY Upstate University Hospital between March 1, 2020, and May 15, 2020, and compared to two historical controls in 2018 and 2019. Descriptive and bivariate statistics were calculated for study variables in each cohort. Poisson regression was used to compare incident rate ratios (IRR) with 95% confidence intervals with significance set at P < .05.

Results

Sixty five patients presented during the COVID-19 pandemic, while 83 presented in 2019 and 95 in 2018. For the study period, the most common mechanism was assault in 47.7%. IRR was significantly lower than in 2018 (IRR = 1.46, P = .018), but not significantly different from 2019 (IRR = 1.28, P = .14). During lockdown, IRR was significantly decreased compared to 2019 (IRR = 1.84, P = .0029) and 2018 (IRR = 2.16, P < .001).

Conclusions

The volume of facial trauma seen in Central New York appears undeterred in the absence of "shelter in place" orders. Analysis of pandemic and regional trauma variations can offer valuable insight for improved resource allocation to better prepare for potentially high-risk procedures.

Postoperative nosocomial COVID-19 infection in surgical patients during pandemic: A prospective observational cohort study

Results

Conclusion

Meta-analysis of COVID-19 prevalence during preoperative COVID-19 screening in asymptomatic patients

OBJECTIVES

Patients with COVID-19 may be asymptomatic and are able to transmit COVID-19 during a surgical procedure, resulting in increased pressure on healthcare and reduced control of COVID-19 spread. There remains uncertainty about the implementation of preoperative screening for COVID-19 in asymptomatic surgical patients. Therefore, this study aims to determine the prevalence of preoperative COVID-19, confirmed by reverse transcriptase PCR (RT-PCR), in asymptomatic patients.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

DATA SOURCES

Pubmed and Embase databases were searched through 20 February 2022.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

All COVID-19 articles including preoperative asymptomatic patients were included.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Two independent reviewers extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Meta-analysis was performed to determine the prevalence of COVID-19 with 95% CI. Moreover, estimated positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value, false-positives (FP) and false-negatives were calculated for preoperative asymptomatic patients.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven studies containing 27 256 asymptomatic preoperative screened patients were included, of which 431 were positive for COVID-19 by RT-PCR test. In addition, the meta-analysis revealed a pooled COVID-19 prevalence of 0.76% (95% CI 0.36% to 1.59%). The calculated PPV for this prevalence is 40.8%.

CONCLUSIONS

The pooled COVID-19 prevalence in asymptomatic patients tested preoperatively was 0.76%, with low corresponding PPV. Consequently, nearly three-quarters of postponed surgical procedures in asymptomatic preoperative patients may be FP. In the event of similar pandemics, modification of preoperative mandatory RT-PCR COVID-19 testing in asymptomatic patients may be considered.

Evaluating the Efficacy of a Screening Protocol for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Virus in Asymptomatic Preoperative/Preprocedural Patients at a Military Hospital

INTRODUCTION

Facing the COVID-19 pandemic, many hospitals implemented severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) screening protocols before aerosol-generating procedures (AGPs) in an effort to protect patients and health care workers. Given the limited prior evidence on the effectiveness of such protocols, we report the process improvement experience at a military treatment facility.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We evaluated the outcomes of patients undergoing AGPs from March to September 2020, divided into three cohorts: a preprotocol (PP) cohort who did not receive screening, an early testing (ET) cohort representing the early months of the screening protocol, and a late testing (LT) cohort managed under adaptive modifications to the screening protocol. We recorded identifiable post-procedure COVID-19 diagnoses. The study was approved as a process improvement protocol and was determined not to meet criteria for human subject research through an institutional approval process.

RESULTS

Across the three cohorts, 4520 procedures were performed: 422 PP, 1297 ET, and 2801 LT. Among 4098 procedures in the ET and LT cohorts, 12 asymptomatic patients tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 (0.29% positivity rate). One left the health system before completing the procedure and another proceeded urgently under COVID precautions, while 10 were rescheduled and completed at a later date; 7 were cleared using a test-based strategy, while 3 were cleared using a time-based strategy. Of 445 patients who had SARS-CoV-2 tests performed within 30 days following their procedures, three patients with negative preoperative tests had a positive test within 30 days, all in the LT cohort but had evidence of acquiring the infection after the procedure or had a false-positive test.

CONCLUSIONS

Our strategy of preprocedural SARS-CoV-2 testing successfully identified asymptomatic infected patients before surgery. Care was delayed for most of these patients without apparent detriment. Adaptation to a time-based strategy for clearance might reduce such delays, but other considerations may still influence how soon procedures should be completed after a positive test.

Gynecologic Surgery during the COVID-19 Pandemic: Is Universal Screening Mandatory?

This study is aimed at evaluating the results of the universal preoperative screening for COVID-19 in gynecologic cases operated on during its outbreak in a tertiary care hospital in Bangkok, Thailand. A retrospective descriptive study was done on all patients who underwent elective or emergency gynecologic surgeries during the pandemic period in Thailand (April 15 to June 5, 2020). The COVID-19 screening results by symptom-based screening, risk-based screening, and RT-PCR for COVID-19 were collected from the electronic medical records. Among 129 patients who underwent gynecologic surgeries, none had a positive RT-PCR for COVID-19. Symptom-based screening found no patients with positive symptoms for COVID-19. Risk-based screening found 4 patients (3.1%) who were in contact with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 cases and 4 patients (3.1%) who were healthcare personnel. In conclusion, routine preoperative RT-PCR for COVID-19 may need to be reconsidered among asymptomatic individuals in a low-prevalence country during the well-controlled COVID-19 situation. Larger studies are required to ascertain the benefit of universal preoperative COVID-19 testing.

Evidence-based review of safe theatre practice during the COVID-19 pandemic beyond personal protective equipment

INTRODUCTION

COVID-19 remains a threat for a fear of a second pandemic. Emergency orthopaedic operations are still among the most commonly performed procedures with increased risk of transmission of SARS CoV-2 to the patients and the healthcare workers. The aim of this study was to present the evidence available into best practices limiting the spread of COVID-19 in healthcare setting during current and future pandemics.

METHODS

A review of the literature was performed in multiple databases (PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, World Health Organization and Centers for Disease Control), using 'COVID-19' with other relevant keywords in different combinations. Owing to the limited and heterogenous evidence available, data were presented in a narrative manner.

FINDINGS

From the evidence gathered it was noted that a multimodal approach to minimising pathogen transmission is required. This primarily comprises the wider engineering and administrative controls to reduce the concentration of the pathogen and to separate staff and patients from it. Theatre isolation and traffic control bundling, theatre flow and logistics, ventilation and waste management form a pivotal role in the environmental/engineering controls. Administrative measures include policies for both patients and staff. For patients, isolation and preoperative screening are of utmost value. For staff, testing for COVID-19, risk assessment, redeployment and provision of persona; protective equipment, together with the necessary training are important administrative controls.

CONCLUSION

We believe these measures are likely to improve the sustainability of resources and can be carried to elective settings in order to return to some form of normality and help to mitigate the effects of future pandemics.

Risk of Acquiring Perioperative COVID-19 During the Initial Pandemic Peak: A Retrospective Cohort Study

OBJECTIVE

To determine the risk of acquiring perioperative COVID-19 infection in previously COVID-19 negative patients.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

During the initial peak of the COVID-19 pandemic, there was significant concern of hospital acquired COVID-19 infections. Medical centers rapidly implemented systems to minimize perioperative transmission, including routine preoperative testing, patient isolation, and enhanced cleaning.

METHODS

In this retrospective cohort study, medical records of all adult patients who underwent surgery at our quaternary, acute care hospital between March 15 and May 15, 2020 were reviewed. The risk of preoperatively negative patients developing symptomatic COVID-19 within 2-14 days postoperatively was determined. Surgical characteristics, outcomes, and complications were compared between those with and without acquired perioperative COVID-19 infection.

RESULTS

Among 501 negative patients undergoing index surgeries, 9 (1.8%) developed symptomatic COVID-19 in the postoperative period; all occurred before implementation of routine preoperative testing [9/243, 3.7% vs 0/258, 0%, odds ratio (OR): 0.048, P = 0.036]. No patient who was polymerase-chain-reaction negative on the day of surgery (n = 170) developed postoperative infection. Perioperative infection was associated with preoperative diabetes (OR: 3.70, P = 0.042), cardiovascular disease (OR: 3.69, P = 0.043), angiotensin receptor blocker use (OR: 6.58, P = 0.004), and transplant surgery (OR: 11.00, P = 0.002), and multiple complications, readmission (OR: 5.50, P = 0.029) and death (OR: 12.81, P = 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

During the initial peak of the COVID-19 pandemic, there was minimal risk of acquiring symptomatic perioperative COVID-19 infection, especially after the implementation of routine preoperative testing. However, perioperative COVID-19 infection was associated with poor postoperative outcome.

Multidisciplinary Safety Recommendations After Tracheostomy During COVID-19 Pandemic: State of the Art Review

OBJECTIVE

In the chronic phase of the COVID-19 pandemic, questions have arisen regarding the care of patients with a tracheostomy and downstream management. This review addresses gaps in the literature regarding posttracheostomy care, emphasizing safety of multidisciplinary teams, coordinating complex care needs, and identifying and managing late complications of prolonged intubation and tracheostomy.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, Cochrane Library, Scopus, Google Scholar, institutional guidance documents.

REVIEW METHODS

Literature through June 2020 on the care of patients with a tracheostomy was reviewed, including consensus statements, clinical practice guidelines, institutional guidance, and scientific literature on COVID-19 and SARS-CoV-2 virology and immunology. Where data were lacking, expert opinions were aggregated and adjudicated to arrive at consensus recommendations.

CONCLUSIONS

Best practices in caring for patients after a tracheostomy during the COVID-19 pandemic are multifaceted, encompassing precautions during aerosol-generating procedures; minimizing exposure risks to health care workers, caregivers, and patients; ensuring safe, timely tracheostomy care; and identifying and managing laryngotracheal injury, such as vocal fold injury, posterior glottic stenosis, and subglottic stenosis that may affect speech, swallowing, and airway protection. We present recommended approaches to tracheostomy care, outlining modifications to conventional algorithms, raising vigilance for heightened risks of bleeding or other complications, and offering recommendations for personal protective equipment, equipment, care protocols, and personnel.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Treatment of patients with a tracheostomy in the COVID-19 pandemic requires foresight and may rival procedural considerations in tracheostomy in their complexity. By considering patient-specific factors, mitigating transmission risks, optimizing the clinical environment, and detecting late manifestations of severe COVID-19, clinicians can ensure due vigilance and quality care.