Dataset Information

Negative Pressure Assisted Microenvironment Surgical Hood: A Novel Cost-Effective Device to Minimize Aerosol Contamination During Neurosurgical Procedures in Times of COVID-19.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

Present guidelines on reducing aerosol generation during neurosurgical procedures are futile. The aim of this article was to describe a novel device to contain aerosol within a small localized environment around the operative field-the negative pressure assisted microenvironment surgical hood (NEPA-MESH).

Methods

This device can be assembled using easily available materials-steel wires, image intensifier cover, surgical drape, and three-dimensional-printed self-locking copolyester double hoops. Large-bore pipes in continuity with a high-volume suction apparatus create a constant negative pressure microenvironment around the operative field. The CEM DT-9880 particle counter was used to estimate particle concentration inside the NEPA-MESH during various stages of a neurosurgical procedure as well as outside. The NEPA-MESH was tested in different craniotomies and endoscopic procedures.

Results

Mean particle concentration inside the NEPA-MESH and outside during drilling in various procedures was calculated and compared using unpaired t test. Significant reduction in particle concentrations was recorded for particles sized 0.3 μm (t = 17.55, P < 0.0001), 0.5 μm (t = 11.39, P < 0.0001), 1 μm (t = 6.36, P = 0.0002), 2.5 μm (t = 2.04, P = 0.074), 5.0 μm (t = 7.026, P = 0.0008), and 10 μm (t = 4.39, P = 0.0023).

Conclusions

As definitive evidence demonstrating the presence of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in aerosol particles is awaited, we describe a cost-effective strategy to reduce aerosol contamination. Significant reduction in particle concentrations was seen outside the NEPA-MESH compared with inside it during various stages of neurosurgical procedures.

SUBMITTER: Patir R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7972824 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionThe emergence of the SARS-CoV-2 virus and subsequent COVID-19 pandemic has had a significant effect on the delivery of routine dentistry; and in particular, periodontal care across the world. This systematic review examines the literature relating to splatter, droplet settle and aerosol for periodontal procedures and forms part of a wider body of research to understand the risk of contamination in relation to periodontal care procedures relevant to COVID-19.MethodsA search of the literature was carried out using key terms and MeSH words relating to the review questions. Sources included Medline (OVID), Embase (OVID), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Scopus, Web of Science and LILACS, ClinicalTrials.Gov . Studies meeting inclusion criteria were screened in duplicate and data extraction was carried out using a template. All studies were assessed for methodological quality and sensitivity. Narrative synthesis was undertaken.ResultsFifty studies were included in the review with procedures including ultrasonic scaling (n = 44), air polishing (n = 4), prophylaxis (n = 2) and hand scaling (n = 3). Outcomes included bacterial (colony-forming units e.g. on settle plates) or blood contamination (e.g. visible splatter) and non bacterial, non blood (e.g. chemiluminescence or coloured dyes) contamination. All studies found contamination at all sites although the contamination associated with hand scaling was very low. Contamination was identified in all of the studies even where suction was used at baseline. Higher power settings created greater contamination. Distribution of contamination varied in relation to operator position and was found on the operator, patient and assistant with higher levels around the head of the operator and the mouth and chest of the patient. Settle was identified 30 min after treatments had finished but returned to background levels when measured at or after an hour. The evidence was generally low to medium quality and likely to underestimate contamination.ConclusionUltrasonic scaling, air polishing and prophylaxis procedures produce contamination (splatter, droplets and aerosol) in the presence of suction, with a small amount of evidence showing droplets taking between 30 min and 1 h to settle. Consideration should be given to infection control, areas of cleaning particularly around the patient and appropriate personal protective equipment, with particular attention to respiratory, facial and body protection for these procedures. In addition, the use of lower power settings should be considered to reduce the amount and spread of contamination.

Project description:Firefighters are occupationally exposed to products of combustion containing polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and flame retardants (FRs), potentially contributing to their increased risk for certain cancers. Personal protective equipment (PPE), including firefighter hoods, helps to reduce firefighters' exposure to toxic substances during fire responses by providing a layer of material on which contaminants deposit prior to reaching the firefighters skin. However, over time hoods that retain some contamination may actually contribute to firefighters' systemic dose. We investigated the effectiveness of laundering to reduce or remove contamination on the hoods, specifically PAHs and three classes of FRs: polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs), non-PBDE flame retardants (NPBFRs), and organophosphate flame retardants (OPFRs). Participants in the study were grouped into crews of 12 firefighters who worked in pairs by job assignment while responding to controlled fires in a single-family residential structure. For each pair of firefighters, one hood was laundered after every scenario and one was not. Bulk samples of the routinely laundered and unlaundered hoods from five pairs of firefighters were collected and analyzed. Residual levels of OPFRs, NPBFRs, and PAHs were lower in the routinely laundered hoods, with total levels of each class of chemicals being 56-81% lower, on average, than the unlaundered hoods. PBDEs, on average, were 43% higher in the laundered hoods, most likely from cross contamination. After this initial testing, four of the five unlaundered exposed hoods were subsequently laundered with other heavily exposed (unlaundered) and unexposed (new) hoods. Post-laundering evaluation of these hoods revealed increased levels of PBDEs, NPBFRs, and OPFRs in both previously exposed and unexposed hoods, indicating cross contamination. For PAHs, there was little evidence of cross contamination and the exposed hoods were significantly less contaminated after laundering (76% reduction; p = 0.011). Further research is needed to understand how residual contamination on hoods could contribute to firefighters' systemic exposures.

Project description:ImportanceThe aerosol box has been used during the management of patients with COVID-19 to reduce health care practitioner (HCP) exposure during aerosol-generating medical procedures (AGMPs). Little is known about the effect of aerosol box use on HCP contamination and AGMP procedure time.ObjectiveTo investigate whether use of an aerosol box during AGMPs reduces HCP contamination or influences the time to successful completion and first-pass success rate for endotracheal intubation (ETI) and laryngeal mask airway (LMA) insertion.Design, setting, and participantsThis multicenter, simulation-based, randomized clinical trial was conducted from May to December 2021 at tertiary care pediatric hospitals. Participant teams performed 3 simulated patient scenarios: bag-valve-mask ventilation, ETI, and LMA insertion. During the scenarios, aerosols were generated using Glo Germ. Teams of 2 HCPs were randomly assigned to control (no aerosol box) or intervention groups (aerosol box). Statistical analysis was performed from July 2022 to February 2023.InterventionsThe aerosol box (or SplashGuard CG) is a transparent, plastic barrier covering the patient's head and shoulders with access ports allowing HCPs to manage the airway.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was surface area of contamination (AOC) on participants. Secondary outcomes were time to successful completion and first-pass success rates for ETI and LMA insertion.ResultsA total of 64 teams (128 participants) were enrolled, with data from 61 teams (122 participants) analyzed. Among the 122 participants analyzed, 79 (64.8%) were female and 85 (69.7%) were physicians. Use of an aerosol box was associated with a 77.5% overall decreased AOC to the torso (95% CI, -86.3% to -62.9%; P < .001) and a 60.7% overall decreased AOC to the facial area (95% CI, -75.2% to -37.8%; P < .001) in airway HCPs. There was no statistically significant difference in surface contamination after doffing personal protective equipment between groups. Time to completing ETI was longer in the aerosol box group compared with the control group (mean difference: 10.2 seconds; 95% CI, 0.2 to 20.2 seconds; P = .04), but there was no difference between groups for LMA insertion (mean difference: 2.4 seconds; 95% CI, -8.7 to 13.5 seconds; P = .67).Conclusions and relevanceIn this randomized clinical trial of aerosol box use in AGMPs, use of an aerosol box reduced contamination deposition on HCPs' torso and face predoffing; the use of an aerosol box delayed time to successful intubation. These results suggest that the incremental benefits of reduced surface contamination from aerosol box use should be weighed against delayed time to complete intubation, which may negatively affect patient outcome.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04880668.