Economic impact of COVID-19 pandemic on healthcare facilities and systems: International perspectives.

International hospitals and healthcare facilities are facing catastrophic financial challenges related to the COVID-19 pandemic. The American Hospital Association estimates a financial impact of $202.6 billion in lost revenue for America's hospitals and healthcare systems, or an average of $50.7 billion per month. Furthermore, it could cost low- and middle-income countries ~ US$52 billion (equivalent to US$8.60 per person) each four weeks to provide an effective healthcare response to COVID-19. In the setting of the largest daily COVID-19 new cases in the US, this burden will influence patient care, surgeries, and surgical outcomes. From a global economic standpoint, The World Bank projects that global growth is projected to shrink by almost 8% with poorer countries feeling most of the impact, and the United Nations projects that it will cost the global economy around 2 trillion dollars this year. Overall, a lack of preparedness was a major contributor to the struggles experienced by healthcare facilities around the world. Items such as personal protective equipment (PPE) for healthcare workers, hospital equipment, sanitizing supplies, toilet paper, and water were in short supply. These deficiencies were exposed by COVID-19 and have prompted healthcare organizations around the world to invent new essential plans for pandemic preparedness. In this paper, we will discuss the economic impact of COVID-19 on US and international hospitals, healthcare facilities, surgery, and surgical outcomes. In the future, the US and countries around the world will benefit from preparing a plan of action to use as a guide in the event of a disaster or pandemic.

Chronic pain and substance abuse disorders: Preoperative assessment and optimization strategies.

There is an ever-increasing number of opioid users among chronic pain patients and safely managing them can be challenging for surgeons, anesthesiologists, pain experts, and addiction specialists. Healthcare providers must be familiar with phenomena typical of opioid users and abusers, including tolerance, physical dependence, hyperalgesia, and addiction. Insufficient pain management is very common in these patients. Patient-centered preoperative communication is integral to setting realistic expectations for postoperative pain, developing successful nonopioid analgesic regimens, minimizing opioid consumption during the postoperative period, and decreasing the number of opioid pills at the risk of diversion. Preoperative evaluation should identify comorbidities and identify risk factors for substance abuse and withdrawal. Intraoperative and postoperative strategies can ensure safe and effective pain management and minimize the potential for morbidity and mortality in this high-risk patient population.

Fluorescence angiography in the assessment of flap perfusion and vitality.

Indocyanine green angiography is increasingly being adopted by reconstructive surgeons for use in pedicle tissue flaps and microvascular free-tissue transfer procedures. With the increasing adoption of this technology, the postoperative complication rate and the need for reoperation can be decreased, making these reconstructive procedures more predictable. The main disadvantage of this technology is its cost; with time and greater adoption of this technology, the cost will eventually decrease. Decreased postoperative complications and reduced need for revision surgery with the use of this technology will play a significant role in decreasing the overall health care costs for these complex reconstructive procedures.

Somatosensory evoked potential assessment of the inferior alveolar nerve following third molar extraction.

Injury to the inferior alveolar nerve can occur during 3rd molar removal. In this study, 14 patients who had 3rd molars removed were evaluated by 4 methods: 1) threshold to electrical stimulation, 2) visual analogue scale subjective ratings of electrical stimulation, 3) two-point discrimination in mental nerve area, and 4) analysis of somatosensory evoked potentials. The last technique proved to be the most sensitive of the methods, providing an objective evaluation as compared to other methods which require a subjective interpretation by the patient.