Summary Aerosol‐generating procedures such as tracheal intubation and extubation pose a potential risk to healthcare workers because of the possibility of airborne transmission of infection. Detailed characterisation of aerosol quantities, particle size and generating activities has been undertaken in a number of simulations but not in actual clinical practice. The aim of this study was to determine whether the processes of facemask ventilation, tracheal intubation and extubation generate aerosols in clinical practice, and to characterise any aerosols produced. In this observational study, patients scheduled to undergo elective endonasal pituitary surgery without symptoms of COVID‐19 were recruited. Airway management including tracheal intubation and extubation was performed in a standard positive pressure operating room with aerosols detected using laser‐based particle image velocimetry to detect larger particles, and spectrometry with continuous air sampling to detect smaller particles. A total of 482,960 data points were assessed for complete procedures in three patients. Facemask ventilation, tracheal tube insertion and cuff inflation generated small particles 30–300 times above background noise that remained suspended in airflows and spread from the patient’s facial region throughout the confines of the operating theatre. Safe clinical practice of these procedures should reflect these particle profiles. This adds to data that inform decisions regarding the appropriate precautions to take in a real‐world setting.

Cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM) is the most common spinal cord disorder and a major cause of disability in adults. Improvements following surgical decompression are limited and patients often remain severely disabled. Post mortem studies indicate that CSM is associated with profound axonal loss. However, our understanding of the pathophysiology of CSM remains limited.To investigate the hypothesis that axonal plasticity plays a role in the recovery following surgical decompression, we adopted a novel preclinical model of mild to moderate CSM. Spinal cord compression resulted in significant locomotor deterioration, increased expression of the axonal injury marker APP, and loss of serotonergic fibres. Surgical decompression partially reversed the deficits and attenuated APP expression. Decompression was also associated with axonal sprouting, reflected in the restoration of serotonergic fibres and an increase of GAP43 expression. The re-expression of synaptophysin indicated the restoration of functional synapses following decompression. Promoting axonal plasticity may therefore be a therapeutic strategy for promoting neurological recovery in CSM.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s40478-016-0359-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Study Design Literature Review (Narrative) Objective To propose a new framework, to support the investigation and understanding of the pathobiology of DCM, AO Spine RECODE-DCM research priority number 5. Methods Degenerative cervical myelopathy is a common and disabling spinal cord disorder. In this perspective, we review key knowledge gaps between the clinical phenotype and our biological models. We then propose a reappraisal of the key driving forces behind DCM and an individual’s susceptibility, including the proposal of a new framework. Results Present pathobiological and mechanistic knowledge does not adequately explain the disease phenotype; why only a subset of patients with visualized cord compression show clinical myelopathy, and the amount of cord compression only weakly correlates with disability. We propose that DCM is better represented as a function of several interacting mechanical forces, such as shear, tension and compression, alongside an individual’s vulnerability to spinal cord injury, influenced by factors such as age, genetics, their cardiovascular, gastrointestinal and nervous system status, and time. Conclusion Understanding the disease pathobiology is a fundamental research priority. We believe a framework of mechanical stress, vulnerability, and time may better represent the disease as a whole. Whilst this remains theoretical, we hope that at the very least it will inspire new avenues of research that better encapsulate the full spectrum of disease.

Manual facemask ventilation, a core component of elective and emergency airway management, is classified as an aerosol-generating procedure. This designation is based on one epidemiological study suggesting an association between facemask ventilation and transmission during the SARS-CoV-1 outbreak in 2003. There is no direct evidence to indicate whether facemask ventilation is a high-risk procedure for aerosol generation. We conducted aerosol monitoring during routine facemask ventilation and facemask ventilation with an intentionally generated leak in anaesthetised patients. Recordings were made in ultraclean operating theatres and compared against the aerosol generated by tidal breathing and cough manoeuvres. Respiratory aerosol from tidal breathing in 11 patients was reliably detected above the very low background particle concentrations with median [IQR (range)] particle counts of 191 (77-486 [4-1313]) and 2 (1-5 [0-13]) particles.l -1 , respectively, p = 0.002. The median (IQR [range]) aerosol concentration detected during facemask ventilation without a leak (3 (0-9 [0-43]) particles.l -1 ) and with an intentional leak (11 (7-26 [1-62]) particles.l -1 ) was 64-fold (p = 0.001) and 17-fold (p = 0.002) lower than that of tidal breathing, respectively. Median (IQR [range]) peak particle concentration during facemask ventilation both without a leak (60 (0-60 [0-120]) particles.l -1 ) and with a leak (120 (60-180 [60-480]) particles.l -1 ) were 20-fold (p = 0.002) and 10-fold (0.001) lower than a cough (1260 (800-3242 [100-3682]) particles.l -1 ), respectively. This study demonstrates that facemask ventilation, even when performed with an intentional leak, does not generate high levels of bioaerosol. On the basis of this evidence, we argue facemask ventilation should not be considered an aerosol-generating procedure.