Endonasal instrumentation and aerosolization risk in the era of COVID‐19: simulation, literature review, and proposed mitigation strategies
Top Cited Papers
Open Access
- 3 April 2020
- journal article
- review article
- Published by Wiley in International Forum of Allergy & Rhinology
- Vol. 10 (7) , 798-805
Abstract
Background: International experience with coronavirus 2019 (COVID‐19) suggests it poses a significant risk of infectious transmission to skull base surgeons, due to high nasal viral titers and the unknown potential for aerosol generation during endonasal instrumentation. The purpose of this study was to simulate aerosolization events over a range of endoscopic procedures to obtain an evidence‐based aerosol risk assessment.Methods: Aerosolization was simulated in a cadaver using fluorescein solution (0.2 mg per 10 mL) and quantified using a blue‐light filter and digital image processing. Outpatient sneezing during endoscopy was simulated using an intranasal atomizer in the presence or absence of intact and modified surgical mask barriers. Surgical aerosolization was simulated during nonpowered instrumentation, suction microdebrider, and high‐speed drilling after nasal fluorescein application.Results: Among the outpatient conditions, a simulated sneeze event generated maximal aerosol distribution at 30 cm, extending to 66 cm. Both an intact surgical mask and a modified VENT mask (which enables endoscopy) eliminated all detectable aerosol spread. Among the surgical conditions, cold instrumentation and microdebrider use did not generate detectable aerosols. Conversely, use of a high‐speed drill produced significant aerosol contamination in all conditions tested.Conclusion: We confirm that aerosolization presents a risk to the endonasal skull base surgeon. In the outpatient setting, use of a barrier significantly reduces aerosol spread. Cold surgical instrumentation and microdebrider use pose significantly less aerosolization risk than a high‐speed drill. Procedures requiring drill use should carry a special designation as an “aerosol‐generating surgery” to convey this unique risk, and this supports the need for protective personal protective equipment.Keywords
This publication has 18 references indexed in Scilit:
- Airborne transmission and precautions: facts and mythsJournal of Hospital Infection, 2015
- Influenza Aerosols in UK Hospitals during the H1N1 (2009) Pandemic – The Risk of Aerosol Generation during Medical ProceduresPLOS ONE, 2013
- Development of a Dose-Response Model for SARS CoronavirusRisk Analysis, 2010
- The Mechanism of Breath Aerosol FormationJournal of Aerosol Medicine and Pulmonary Drug Delivery, 2009
- Surgical smoke and ultrafine particlesJournal of Occupational Medicine and Toxicology, 2008
- Detection of Airborne Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) Coronavirus and Environmental Contamination in SARS Outbreak UnitsThe Journal of Infectious Diseases, 2005
- Contamination during removal of cement in revision hip arthroplastyThe Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. British volume, 2003
- Aerosols produced by high-speed cutters in cervical spine surgery: extent of environmental contaminationEuropean Spine Journal, 2001
- Human immunodeficiency virus‐1 (HIV‐1) in the vapors of surgical power instrumentsJournal of Medical Virology, 1991
- Experimental determination of the regional deposition of aerosol particles in the human respiratory tractAIHA Journal, 1980