The SARS-CoV2 envelope differs from host cells, exposes procoagulant lipids, and is disrupted in vivo by oral rinses.

The lipid envelope of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is an essential component of the virus; however, its molecular composition is undetermined. Addressing this knowledge gap could support the design of antiviral agents as well as further our understanding of viral-host protein interactions, infectivity, pathogenicity, and innate immune system clearance. Lipidomics revealed that the virus envelope comprised mainly phospholipids (PLs), with some cholesterol and sphingolipids, and with cholesterol/phospholipid ratio similar to lysosomes. Unlike cellular membranes, procoagulant amino-PLs were present on the external side of the viral envelope at levels exceeding those on activated platelets. Accordingly, virions directly promoted blood coagulation. To investigate whether these differences could enable selective targeting of the viral envelope in vivo, we tested whether oral rinses containing lipid-disrupting chemicals could reduce infectivity. Products containing PL-disrupting surfactants (such as cetylpyridinium chloride) met European virucidal standards in vitro; however, components that altered the critical micelle concentration reduced efficacy, and products containing essential oils, povidone-iodine, or chlorhexidine were ineffective. This result was recapitulated in vivo, where a 30-s oral rinse with cetylpyridinium chloride mouthwash eliminated live virus in the oral cavity of patients with coronavirus disease 19 for at least 1 h, whereas povidone-iodine and saline mouthwashes were ineffective. We conclude that the SARS-CoV-2 lipid envelope i) is distinct from the host plasma membrane, which may enable design of selective antiviral approaches; ii) contains exposed phosphatidylethanolamine and phosphatidylserine, which may influence thrombosis, pathogenicity, and inflammation; and iii) can be selectively targeted in vivo by specific oral rinses.

Intrinsic Vertebral Markers for Spinal Level Localization in Anterior Cervical Spine Surgery: A Preliminary Report.

STUDY DESIGN: Prospective clinical study. PURPOSE: To observe the usefulness of anterior cervical osteophytes as intrinsic markers for spinal level localization (SLL) during sub-axial cervical spinal surgery via the anterior approach. OVERVIEW OF LITERATURE: Various landmarks, such as the mandibular angle, hyoid bone, thyroid cartilage, first cricoid ring, and C6 carotid tubercle, are used for gross cervical SLL; however, none are used during cervical spinal surgery via the anterior approach. We present our preliminary assessment of SLL over anterior vertebral surfaces (i.e., intrinsic markers) in 48 consecutive cases of anterior cervical spinal surgeries for the disc-osteophyte complex (DOC) in degenerative diseases and granulation or tumor tissue associated with infectious or neoplastic diseases, respectively, at an ill-equipped center. METHODS: This prospective study on patients undergoing anterior cervical surgery for various sub-axial cervical spinal pathologies aimed to evaluate the feasibility and accuracy of SLL via intraoperative palpation of disease-related morphological changes on anterior vertebral surfaces visible on preoperative midline sagittal T1/2-weighted magnetic resonance images. RESULTS: During a 3-year period, 48 patients (38 males,10 females; average age, 43.58 years) who underwent surgery via the anterior approach for various sub-axial cervical spinal pathologies, including degenerative disease (n= 42), tubercular infection (Pott's disease; n=3), traumatic prolapsed disc (n=2), and a metastatic lesion from thyroid carcinoma (n=1), comprised the study group. Intrinsic marker palpation yielded accurate SLL in 79% of patients (n=38). Among those with degenerative diseases (n=42), intrinsic marker palpation yielded accurate SLL in 76% of patients (n=32). CONCLUSIONS: Intrinsic marker palpation is an attractive potential adjunct for SLL during cervical spinal surgeries via the anterior approach in well-selected patients at ill-equipped centers (e.g., those found in developing countries). This technique may prove helpful when radiographic visualization is occasionally inadequate.

Double-blind randomised controlled trial comparing Merocel with Rapid Rhino nasal packs after routine nasal surgery.

INTRODUCTION: Nasal packing after routine nasal surgery is commonly practiced in the UK. The most popular pack appears to be Merocel, however this can be associated with significant pain on its removal. AIM: To test the efficacy of a relatively new nasal pack--the Rapid Rhino Goodman pack--introduced to our department, which claims to reduce pain and bleeding after nasal surgery. METHODS: Fourteen patients undergoing routine nasal surgery were recruited into a randomised controlled trial. One nasal cavity was packed with a Merocel pack and the other with a Rapid Rhino Goodman pack. Patients were asked to record pain levels on each side using a visual analogue scale. RESULTS: We found no difference between packs whilst in-situ, with all patients recording low to moderate pain scores. There were significantly higher pain levels associated with Merocel pack removal than with Rapid Rhino pack removal (average pain scores 5.64 vs 1.64, p < 0.001) and less bleeding overall. CONCLUSIONS: Rapid Rhino (Goodman pack) is associated with significantly less pain on removal than Merocel pack, causes less bleeding and is not more painful whilst in-situ. We therefore recommend its use in routine nasal surgery.