In vitro comparison of surgical techniques in times of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic: electrocautery generates more droplets and aerosol than laser surgery or drilling

Abstract

Introduction Based on current knowledge, the SARS-CoV-2 is transmitted via droplet, aerosols and smear infection. Due to a confirmed high virus load in the upper respiratory tract of COVID-19 patients, there is a potential risk of infection for health care professionals when performing surgical procedures in this area. The aim of this study was the semi-quantitative comparison of ENT-typical interventions in the head and neck area with regard to particle and aerosol generation. These data can potentially contribute to a better risk assessment of aerogenic SARS-CoV-2-transmission caused by medical procedures. Materials and methods As a model, a test chamber was created to examine various typical surgical interventions on porcine soft and hard tissues. Simultaneously, particle and aerosol release were recorded and semi-quantitatively evaluated timedependently. Five typical surgical intervention techniques (mechanical stress with a passive instrument with and without suction, CO 2 laser treatment, drilling and bipolar electrocoagulation) were examined and compared regarding resulting particle release. Results Neither aerosols nor particles could be detected during mechanical manipulation with and without suction. The use of laser technique showed considerable formation of aerosol. During drilling, mainly solid tissue particles were scattered into the environment (18.2 ± 15.7 particles/cm 2 /min). The strongest particle release was determined during electrocoagulation (77.2 ± 30.4 particles/cm 2 /min). The difference in particle release between electrocoagulation and drilling was significant (p < 0.05), while particle diameter was comparable. In addition, relevant amounts of aerosol were released during electrocoagulation (79.6% of the maximum flue gas emission during laser treatment). Discussion Our results demonstrated clear differences comparing surgical model interventions. In contrast to sole mechanical stress with passive instruments, all active instruments (laser, drilling and electrocoagulation) released particles and aerosols. Assuming that particle and aerosol exposure is clinically correlated to the risk of SARS-CoV-2-transmission from the patient to the physician, a potential risk for health care professionals for infection cannot be excluded. Especially electrocautery is frequently used for emergency treatment, e.g., nose bleeding. The use of this technique may, therefore, be considered particularly critical in potentially infectious patients. Alternative methods may be given preference and personal protective equipment should be used consequently.

Dental Aerosol as a Hazard Risk for Dental Workers

“…Contrary to our aerosol generation results by Er:YAG laser, Guderian et al found excessive aerosol release during CO 2 laser application. That can indicate additional benefit in using erbium family lasers compared to CO 2 in terms of decreasing biohazard in the dental office [ 42 ]. Although the laser works through the water components vaporization in the target tissue, the explosion effect has a limited range; thus, the aerosol formed during this process is lower in contrast to traditional methods of caries removal [ 21 ].…”

Management of transmodiolar and transmacular cochleovestibular schwannomas with and without cochlear implantation

“…7 a; [ 46 , 49 , 51 ]). Second, the magnetic field can induce significant heat and force, which may lead to pain and magnet dislocation, necessitating revision surgery [ 14 , 23 , 47 , 49 ]. Temporary magnet removal or correct securing of a head splint can be used to overcome these problems.…”

Typical symptoms of common otorhinolaryngological diseases may mask a SARS-CoV-2 infection

“…Numerous studies suggest that transmission of SARS-CoV-2 occurs primarily through droplets and aerosols [ 15 – 18 ]. Surgical procedures in the upper airways are, therefore, considered to be potential high-risk procedures as they are associated with aerosol and droplet exposure, especially when active instruments are used [ 19 , 20 ]. Even standard ORL examination with nasal endoscopy has to be regarded as a potentially droplet- and aerosol-generating intervention with a considerable risk of virus transmission [ 21 ].…”