Effect of the pandemic on surgical procedures in a tertiary care hospital: A retrospective review

Objectives

The aim of this study was to examine the impact of performing surgeries with necessary precautions and to evaluate demographic characteristics of operated patients during novel coronavirus-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and the infection rates during hospitalization and within 14 days after surgery.

Material and Methods

Between March 15^th, 2020 and April 30^th, 2020, a total of 639 patients who had been operated on in our center were retrospectively analyzed. According to the triage system, the surgical procedures were classified as emergency, time-sensitive, and elective procedures. Data including age, sex, indication for surgery, the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class, pre- and postoperative symptoms, the presence and/ or absence of reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test result, type of surgery, surgical site, and documented COVID-19 infections during hospitalization and within 21 days after surgery were recorded.

Results

Of the patients, 60.4% were males and 39.6% were females with a mean age of 43.08 ± 22.68 years. Malignancy was the most common indication for surgery (35.5%), followed by trauma (29.1%). The abdominal area and head and neck region were the most frequent surgical sites in 27.4% and 24.9% of the patients, respectively. Of all surgical procedures, 54.9% were emergency and 43.9% were time-sensitive procedures. Of the patients, 84.2% were in ASA Class I-II while 15.8% patients were in ASA Class III, IV and V. General anesthesia was the most common anesthesia type in 83.9% of the patients. The overall rate of COVID-19 infection was 0.63% in the preoperative period. The rate of COVID-19 infection during and after surgery was 0.31%.

Conclusion

With similar infection rates to the general population, surgeries of all types can be performed safely taking preventive measures in the preand postoperative period. It would be wise to perform surgical treatment without delay in patients with an increased risk for mortality and morbidity in accordance with strict infection control principles.

Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on hand injuries

BACKGROUND

The aim of the study was to evaluate etiologies of hand injuries in emergency department (ED), to compare the etiologies of hand injuries at the time of this study with the previous year, to assess whether novel coronavirus-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic affected the treatment decisions, and to investigate the COVID-19 infection rate within the first 14 days after admission.

METHODS

A total of 229 patients admitted to ED with hand injury between March 15 and April 30, 2020, were included in the study. The control group consisted of 439 ED admissions with hand injury in the previous year (March 15-April 30, 2019). Data including age, sex, cause of trauma, treatment, and COVID-19 infection status within 14 days after ED admission were compared between groups.

RESULTS

The mean age was 32.30±15.63 years in the study group and 30.85±18.54 years in the control group. The number of patients consulted to the surgery department decreased by 52.6% and the number of patients admitted to ED with hand injuries de-creased by 47.6% during the pandemic, compared to the previous year (p=0.0001). The incidence of home accidents increased and the glass cuts and penetrating/perforating injuries were the most common causes during the pandemic most of which occurred at home.

CONCLUSION

The COVID-19 pandemic-mandated social restrictions led to a significant decrease in the number of ED admissions with hand injuries and the type of injuries. The incidence of home accidents increased with more time spent indoors. This study may be a useful guide for ED admissions of hand injury cases and management planning in the current and future pandemics.

Comparison of different treatment techniques in the mandibular condyle fracture

BACKGROUND

Mandibular condyle fractures can be treated conservatively by intermaxillary fixation (IMF) or by open reposition and internal fixation. Although many studies have discussed for the optimal treatment method, the issue remains controversial. In this study, we aimed to compare conservative techniques in the mandibular condyle fractures.

METHODS

Twenty four unilateral condyle fracture patients aged between 18 and 48 years were treated according to one of three different modalities. Bracketing, arch bar or mini screw was applied to all non-surgery patients to obtain IMF. Eight patients were treated with only IMF meanwhile eleven patients were treated with one or double-sided amplifier occlusal splint according to the status of fractured segments, in addition to IMF. Remaining five patients have undergone open reduction and fractured segments immobilized with mini plates. Pre- and post-operative images were recorded with a computerized tomography device. Clinical and radiological examinations were performed by orthodontists and surgeons at baseline and at 6 months of treatment.

RESULTS

The condyle lengths of the patients with unilateral fracture after recovery were compared with the unaffected side. The length between the most protruding point of the condyle and the mandible was measured and the length difference was only 5.94 mm in patients who were treated by IMF. The length difference of patients who used brackets and splints was 3.36 mm (p<0.05). The length difference of patients who were repaired by plate screws was 1.80 mm (p>0.05). However, there was no statistically significant difference (p>0.05) between the groups in the IMF, occlusal splint and IMF and mini plate groups, between the trauma side and the opposite side. None of the patients developed ankylosis, open mouth, limitation of mouth opening, facial asymmetry, laterognathia, and retrognathia. The occlusion of the patients who were not known to have pre-trauma occlusions were directed, repositioned and provided an appropriate occlusion.

CONCLUSION

The use of IMF with an occlusal splint is a more conservative and acceptable treatment modality than open reduction in selected cases.

Soft Tissue Thickness Variations of the Nose: A Radiological Study

BACKGROUND

Soft tissue thickness (STT) is a major factor affecting the outcome in rhinoplasty. However, limited information is found in the literature on the age- and gender-related variations of the nasal STT.

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to measure STT at various landmarks over the nasal framework and compare the age- and gender-related differences.

METHODS

STT measurements were made at 11 landmarks in 325 patients by employing magnetic resonance imaging. Patients were divided into subgroups to compare the STT differences between female and male and between the age groups as young, middle age, and elderly.

RESULTS

Soft tissue was thickest at the nasion and thinnest at the rhinion. The soft tissue coverage was significantly thicker in the male population at the supratip, tip, nasal bones, upper lateral cartilages, and alar lobules, whereas it is thicker in females at the rhinion. Average thickness of the soft tissues over the entire nasal framework increases with age except the rhinion.

CONCLUSIONS

The STT is variable over different parts of the osteocartilaginous framework. Gender and age influence the STT. The soft tissue is thicker at the distal half of the nose in male patients, and these areas become gradually thicker with age, whereas the soft tissue over the midvault becomes thinner. Increasing age presents a particular challenge to achieve predictable results in rhinoplasty, and an understanding of the soft tissue envelope allows for improved aesthetic outcome.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE 2