Quantification of Aerosol Particle Concentrations During Endoscopic Sinonasal Surgery in the Operating Room.

BACKGROUND: Recent indirect evidence of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) transmission during endoscopic endonasal procedures has highlighted the dearth of knowledge surrounding aerosol generation with these procedures. As we adapt to function in the era of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) a better understanding of how surgical techniques generate potentially infectious aerosolized particles will enhance the safety of operating room (OR) staff and learners. OBJECTIVE: To provide greater understanding of possible SARS-CoV-2 exposure risk during endonasal surgeries by quantifying increases in airborne particle concentrations during endoscopic sinonasal surgery. METHODS: Aerosol concentrations were measured during live-patient endoscopic endonasal surgeries in ORs with an optical particle sizer. Measurements were taken throughout the procedure at six time points: 1) before patient entered the OR, 2) before pre-incision timeout during OR setup, 3) during cold instrumentation with suction, 4) during microdebrider use, 5) during drill use and, 6) at the end of the case prior to extubation. Measurements were taken at three different OR position: surgeon, circulating nurse, and anesthesia provider. RESULTS: Significant increases in airborne particle concentration were measured at the surgeon position with both the microdebrider (p = 0.001) and drill (p = 0.001), but not for cold instrumentation with suction (p = 0.340). Particle concentration did not significantly increase at the anesthesia position or the circulator position with any form of instrumentation. Overall, the surgeon position had a mean increase in particle concentration of 2445 particles/ft3 (95% CI 881 to 3955; p = 0.001) during drill use and 1825 particles/ft3 (95% CI 641 to 3009; p = 0.001) during microdebrider use. CONCLUSION: Drilling and microdebrider use during endonasal surgery in a standard operating room is associated with a significant increase in airborne particle concentrations. Fortunately, this increase in aerosol concentration is localized to the area of the operating surgeon, with no detectable increase in aerosol particles at other OR positions.

Quantification of Aerosol Concentrations During Endonasal Instrumentation in the Clinic Setting.

OBJECTIVE: Recent anecdotal reports and cadaveric simulations have described aerosol generation during endonasal instrumentation, highlighting a possible risk for transmission of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) during endoscopic endonasal instrumentation. This study aims to provide a greater understanding of particle generation and exposure risk during endoscopic endonasal instrumentation. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective quantification of aerosol generation during office-based nasal endoscopy procedures. METHODS: Using an optical particle sizer, airborne particles concentrations 0.3 to 10 microns in diameter, were measured during 30 nasal endoscopies in the clinic setting. Measurements were taken at time points throughout diagnostic and debridement endoscopies and compared to preprocedure and empty room particle concentrations. RESULTS: No significant change in airborne particle concentrations was measured during diagnostic nasal endoscopies in patients without the need for debridement. However, significant increases in mean particle concentration compared to preprocedure levels were measured during cold instrumentation at 2,462 particles/foot3 (95% CI 837 to 4,088; P = .005) and during suction use at 2,973 particle/foot3 (95% CI 1,419 to 4,529; P = .001). In total, 99.2% of all measured particles were ≤1 µm in diameter. CONCLUSION: When measured with an optical particle sizer, diagnostic nasal endoscopy with a rigid endoscope is not associated with increased particle aerosolization in patient for whom sinonasal debridement is not needed. In patients needing sinonasal debridement, endonasal cold and suction instrumentation were associated with increased particle aerosolization, with a trend observed during endoscope use prior to tissue manipulation. Endonasal debridement may potentially pose a higher risk for aerosolization and SARS-CoV-2 transmission. Appropriate personal protective equipment use and patient screening are recommended for all office-based endonasal procedures. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3 Laryngoscope, 131:E1415-E1421, 2021.

Prolonged Implantation of Sinus Devices and Implications for Chronic Rhinosinusitis: A Case Report and Review of the Literature.

BACKGROUND: Implantation of sinus stents and spacers can be used as adjuvant management to maintain patency of sinuses after endoscopic sinus surgery for chronic rhinosinusitis. These implants are typically removed several weeks after surgery. We present two cases of different patients who were initially treated by different physicians and were found to have retained sinus spacers in their paranasal sinuses 6-10 years after implantation. CASE PRESENTATION: Case 1: a 40-year old male with chronic rhinosinusitis and history of balloon sinuplasty six years prior presented with worsening symptoms of chronic rhinosinusitis refractory to medical management. He underwent revision functional endoscopic sinus surgery and was found to have retained sinus implants in the left and right frontal sinus recesses. Case 2: a 48-year-old female with long-standing chronic rhinosinusitis refractory to medical management presented after two prior sinus surgeries most recently 10 years ago. She underwent revision functional endoscopic surgery and was found to have a retained sinus implant from prior surgery in the right frontal recess outflow tract embedded within scar tissue and reactive hyperostosis. Foreign bodies from both patients were removed without complication and patients were healing appropriately in the post-operative period. CONCLUSIONS: While sinus stents and spacers can help with post-operative scarring, leaving then unmonitored and in place will eventually result in them becoming a nidus for scarring and infection. It is critical that patients are aware of any foreign bodies we place, if they need scheduled removal or routine observation, and what symptoms may indicate that they are causing a problem.

Understood? Evaluating the readability and understandability of intranasal corticosteroid delivery instructions.

BACKGROUND: Allergic rhinitis is a widespread disease that has significant quality-of-life ramifications. Symptoms include rhinorrhea, nasal obstruction, cough, and postnasal drip. Intranasal corticosteroids are a hallmark of treatment of allergic rhinitis. However, the benefits of treatment are dependent on correct nasal spray technique, of which many patients are not aware. Patient instructions are included with the purchase of these medications. The readability and understandability for these educational materials has been minimally assessed in the medical literature. The aim of this study was to evaluate the readability and understandability of commonly used intranasal steroids. METHODS: Three readability measures (Gunning Fog, Simple Measure of Gobbledygook [SMOG], and FORCAST) and an understandability assessment (Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool for Printable Materials [PEMAT-P]) were used to evaluate the instructions for use of commonly prescribed intranasal steroids. Instructions with 6th grade readability level or lower were considered to meet health literacy experts' recommendations. Higher understandability values correlate to easier understandability. RESULTS: Instructions for 10 intranasal corticosteroid brands were reviewed. Gunning Fog consistently estimated easiest readability, whereas FORCAST estimated most difficult readability. Twenty percent (20%) of analyzed instructions met National Institutes of Health and health literacy experts' recommended reading levels. Understandability of instructions ranged from 33% to 90%, with an average of 66%. CONCLUSION: The benefit of intranasal corticosteroids is contingent on correct use by patients. However, the prepackaged instructions provided are most often above recommended reading levels and are difficult to understand. Future development of intranasal steroid instructions should meet recommended readability levels and be understandable to maximize their utility.