Bioaerosols in orthopedic surgical procedures and implications for clinical practice in the times of COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Introduction
Orthopedic surgical procedures (OSPs) are known to generate bioaerosols, which could result in transmission of infectious diseases. Hence, this review was undertaken to analyse the available evidence on bioaerosols in OSPs, and their significance in COVID-19 transmission.Methods
A systematic review was conducted by searching the PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, Cochrane Library, medRxiv, bioRxiv and Lancet preprint databases for studies on bioaerosols in OSPs. Random-effects metanalysis was conducted to determine pooled estimates of key bioaerosol characteristics. Risk of bias was assessed by the RoB-SPEO tool; overall strength of evidence was assessed by the GRADE approach.Results
17 studies were included in the systematic review, and 6 in different sets of meta-analyses. The pooled estimate of particle density was 390.74 μg/m3, Total Particle Count, 6.08 × 106/m3, and Microbial Air Contamination, 8.08 CFU/m3. Small sized particles (ConclusionWhereas there is evidence to suggest that OSPs generate large amounts of bioaerosols, their potential to transmit infectious diseases like COVID-19 is questionable. High-quality research, as well as consensus minimum reporting guidelines for bioaerosol research in OSPs is the need of the hour.
SUBMITTER: Sharma S
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8005256 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:The purpose of the present review was to evaluate the available evidence on the efficacy of various non-pharmacological interventions to relieve pain after orthopedic surgical procedures. An electronic search of the PubMed, Embase and Cochrane library databases was performed to retrieve studies of all types assessing the role of non-pharmacological interventions for pain relief after orthopedic surgical procedures. The included studies were required to assess pain outcomes using a validated measurement index, such as the Visual Analog Scale. The quality of randomized control trials (RCTs) was assessed using the Cochrane tool, while the ROBINS-I tool was used for non-RCTs. A total of five studies were included, namely three RCTs and two non-RCTs. The included studies used relaxation therapy, guided imagery, music and audio-visual distraction for pain management. There was considerable heterogeneity concerning study participants and types of intervention, which precluded a meta-analysis. Overall, all studies reported a significant beneficial effect of non-pharmacological interventions for pain relief. To conclude, current evidence from a limited number of studies indicates there may be a potential role of non-pharmacological interventions, including relaxation therapy, guided imagery, music and audio-visual distraction, in pain management of patients after orthopedic surgery. Owing to considerable heterogeneity and risk of bias in the included studies, strong conclusions cannot be drawn. Further high-quality RCTs assessing the role of such non-pharmacological techniques of pain management are required to strengthen the current evidence.
| S-EPMC7480131 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundUS opioid prescribing and use escalated over the last two decades, with parallel increases in opioid misuse, opioid-related deaths, and concerns about diversion. Postoperatively prescribed opioids contribute to these problems. Policy makers have addressed this issue by limiting postoperative opioid prescribing. However, until recently, little data existed to guide prescribers on opioid needs postoperatively. This meta-analysis quantitatively integrated the growing literature regarding extent of opioids leftover after surgery and identified factors associated with leftover opioid proportions.MethodsWe conducted a meta-analysis of observational studies quantifying postoperative opioid consumption in North American adults, and evaluated effect size moderators using robust variance estimation meta-regression. Medline, EMBASE, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched for relevant articles published January 1, 2000 to November 10, 2018. The Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies (MINORS) tool assessed risk of study bias. The proportion effect size quantified the primary outcome: proportion of prescribed postoperative opioids leftover at the time of follow-up. Primary meta-regression analyses tested surgical type, amount of opioids prescribed, and study publication year as possible moderators. Secondary meta-regression models included surgical invasiveness, age, race, gender, postoperative day of data collection, and preoperative opioid use.ResultsWe screened 911 citations and included 44 studies (13,068 patients). The mean weighted effect size for proportion of postoperative opioid prescriptions leftover was 61% (95% CI, 56-67%). Meta-regression models revealed type of surgical procedure and level of invasiveness had a statistically significant effect on proportion of opioids leftover. Proportion of opioids leftover was greater for "other soft tissue" surgeries than abdominal/pelvic surgeries, but did not differ significantly between orthopedic and abdominal/pelvic surgeries. Minimally invasive compared to open surgeries resulted in a greater proportion of opioids leftover. Limitations include predominance of studies from academic settings, inconsistent reporting of confounders, and a possible publication bias toward studies reporting smaller leftover opioid proportions.Conclusions and implications of key findingsA significant proportion of opioids are leftover postoperatively. Surgery type and level of invasiveness affect postoperative opioid consumption. Integration of such factors into prescribing guidelines may help minimize opioid overprescribing while adequately meeting analgesic needs.
| S-EPMC7291535 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Surgical site infection (SSI) is a common and preventable complication of surgery, but the relative importance of individual measures recommended by guidelines has not been determined. Elective general surgical, neurological, and orthopedic procedures requiring antibiotic prophylaxis from a 3-month period were retrospectively studied to determine concordance with SSI prevention guidelines and to identify factors which predicted the development of SSIs. A total of 216 surgeries were reviewed, with 18 SSIs (8.3%). A mean of 1.4 antibiotic prophylaxis errors per surgery were identified, with correct antibiotic type identified for 64%, antibiotic timing for 83%, supplemental antibiotic dosing for 34%, and antibiotic duration of less than 24 h for 44%. Normothermia was present in 79% of surgeries, and normoglycemia was present in 17%. Univariate analysis of the SSI rate identified four significant factors. Antibiotic prophylaxis for less than 24 h postoperatively (odds ratio [OR], 0.213; 95% confidence interval [95% CI]0.060 to 0.757) and neurosurgery (OR, 0.118; 95% CI, 0.15 to 0.903) correlated with a reduced risk of SSI. The mean number of prophylaxis errors (OR, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.02 to 2.4) and a duration of surgical drainage for more than 3 days (OR, 2.679; 95% CI, 1.009 to 7.113) predicted SSI. By multivariate analysis, errors in individual antibiotic prophylaxis measures were not significantly associated with SSI; however, the presence of more than two errors was significant (OR, 4.030; 95% CI, 1.018 to 15.96). A strong correlation was identified between the degree of concordance to SSI prevention guidelines and the SSI rate (P = 0.001, Mantel-Haenszel linear-by-linear association chi-square test).
| S-EPMC3186972 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Distance to a hospital is an influencing factor for patients´ decision making when choosing a hospital for surgery. It is unclear whether patients prefer to travel further to regional instead of local hospitals if the risk associated with elective surgery is lower in the farther hospital. The aim of our systematic review was to investigate patient preferences for the location of care, taking into consideration surgical outcomes and hospital distance. METHODS:MEDLINE (PubMed), EconLit, PsycInfo and EMBASE were searched until November 2019. We included experimental choice studies in which participants were asked to make a hypothetical decision where to go for elective surgery when surgical risk and/or distance to the hospitals vary. There was no restriction on the type of intervention or study. Reviewers independently extracted data using a standardized form. The number and proportion of participants willing to accept additional risk to obtain surgery in the local hospital was recorded. We also extracted factors associated with the decision. RESULTS:Five studies exploring participants´ preferences for local care were included. In all studies, there were participants who, independently of a decreased mortality risk or a higher survival benefit in the regional hospital, adhered to the local hospital. The majority of the patients were willing to travel longer to lower their surgical risk. Older age and fewer years of formal education were associated with a higher risk tolerance in the local hospital. CONCLUSIONS:Whether patients were willing to travel for a lower surgery-associated risk could not be answered in a straightforward manner. The studies we identified showed that decision making also relies on factors other than on rational information on risk or distance to hospital. TRIAL REGISTRATION:International prospective register of ongoing systematic reviews (PROSPERO): CRD42016033655. Registered 1 January 2016.
| S-EPMC7031936 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo systematically evaluate the evidence across surgical specialties as to whether staples or sutures better improve patient and provider level outcomes.DesignA systematic review of systematic reviews and panoramic meta-analysis of pooled estimates.ResultsEleven systematic reviews, including 13,661 observations, met the inclusion criteria. In orthopaedic surgery sutures were found to be preferable, and for appendicial stump sutures were protective against both surgical site infection and post surgical complications. However, staples were protective against leak in ilecolic anastomosis. For all other surgery types the evidence was inconclusive with wider confidence intervals including the possibly of preferential outcomes for surgical site infection or post surgical complication for either staples or sutures. Whilst reviews showed substantial variation in mean differences in operating time (I(2) 94%) there was clear evidence of a reduction in average operating time across all surgery types. Few reviews reported on length of stay, but the three reviews that did (I(2) 0%, including 950 observations) showed a non significant reduction in length of stay, but showed evidence of publication bias (P-value for Egger test 0.05).ConclusionsEvidence across surgical specialties indicates that wound closure with staples reduces the mean operating time. Despite including several thousand observations, no clear evidence of superiority emerged for either staples or sutures with respect to surgical site infection, post surgical complications, or length of stay.
| S-EPMC3792070 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The most appropriate surgical treatment for pilonidal sinus disease (PSD) is still in dispute. This study aims to comprehensively compare the outcomes of surgical interventions using network meta-analysis. Randomized controlled trial studies were searched systematically to identify all eligible studies in multiple databases and previous publications and Bayesian network meta-analysis was performed. Our primary outcome was the recurrence rate. Differences in the findings of the studies were explored in meta regressions and sensitivity analyses. The risk of bias of each study was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Confidence in evidence was assessed using CINeMA (Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis). A total of 39 studies and 5,061 patients were identified and the most common surgical intervention was the Limberg flap. In network meta-analysis, modified Limberg flap and off-midline closure were associated with the lowest recurrence rate. However, the Karydakis flap was associated with shorter operation time by several minutes compared with other interventions and few significant results were found in other outcomes. Modified Limberg flap and off-midline closure provided relatively low recurrence and complications rates. Therefore, they could be two promising surgical interventions for PSD patients.
| S-EPMC7426950 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Bariatric surgery has proved to be an effective strategy in treating obesity. However, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of 3 most common bariatric surgery procedures, Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB), sleeve gastrectomy (SG), and laparoscopic adjustable gastric band (LAGB), reported inconsistent results. We performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis to synthesize evidence of effectiveness of the 3 common bariatric procedures from relevant RCTs.The present study was a systematic review and network meta-analysis of RCTs. All RCTs must meet the following criteria to be included in the analysis: patients with body mass index (BMI) ?30?kg/m, reported at least 1 outcome of interest, compared at least 2 of the 3 bariatric procedures, and had follow-ups of at least 1 year. Primary outcome was weight loss, expressed as differences in mean BMI reduction and percentage excess weight loss (%EWL) following 1 year after the surgery. Network meta-analysis was based on Bayesian framework with Markov Chain Monte Carlo simulation approach.Eleven RCTs that met the criteria were included in the review. Of 9 trials (n?=?765), the differences in mean BMI reduction were -0.76 (95% CI: -3.1 to 1.6) for RYGB versus SG, -5.8 (95% CI: -9.2 to -2.4) for RYGB versus LAGB, and -5.0 (95% CI: -9.0 to -1.0) for SG versus LAGB. Eight RCTs (n?=?656) reported percentage excess weight-loss (%EWL), the mean differences between RYGB and SG, RYGB and LAGB, and SG and LAGB were 3.8% (95% CI: -8.5% to 13.8%), -22.2% (95% CI: -34.7% to -6.5%), and -26.0% (95% CI: -40.6% to -6.4%), respectively. The meta-analysis indicated low heterogeneity between studies, and the node splitting analysis showed that the studies were consistent between direct and indirect comparisons (P?>?.05).The RYGB and SG yielded similar in weight-loss effect and both were superior to LAGB. Other factors such as complications and patient preference should be considered during surgical consultations.
| S-EPMC5704829 | biostudies-other
Project description:The coronavirus disease (COVID-19) outbreak </mac_aq>started in Wuhan, China, in December 2019, and evolved into a global problem in a short period. The pandemic has led to many social and health-care challenges. In this context, surgery is an area that is facing the need for many adaptations. In this systematic literature review, we analyzed different perspectives concerning this situation, aiming to provide recommendations that could guide surgeons and </mac_aq>entities toward screening, elective and emergency surgeries, decision making, and operating room management. A computerized search in PubMed, Scopus, and Scientific Electronic Library Online (SciELO) for relevant literature up to April 4, 2020, was performed. Articles were included if they were related to surgery dynamics in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. Of the 281 articles found in our initial search and 15 articles from alternative sources, 39 were included in our review after a systematic evaluation. Concerning preoperative testing </mac_aq>for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection, 29 (74.4%) articles recommended some kind of </mac_aq>screening. Another major suggestion was postponing all (or at least selected) elective operations (29 articles, </mac_aq>74.4%). Several additional recommendations with respect to surgical practice or surgical staff were also assessed and discussed, such as performing laparoscopic surgeries and avoiding the use of electrocauterization. On the basis of the current literature, we concluded that any surgery that can be delayed should be postponed. COVID-19 screening is strongly recommended for all surgical cases. Moreover, surgical staff should be reduced to the essential members and provided with institutional psychological support.
| S-EPMC7213672 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivePresent 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).MethodsThis 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.ResultsMean 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).ConclusionsAs 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.
| S-EPMC7972824 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundDeep sedation relieves a patient's anxiety and stress during the procedure by inducing patient unconsciousness. However, it remains unclear whether deep sedation actually improves patient satisfaction with the procedure. Therefore, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the satisfaction of patients undergoing deep sedation with that of those undergoing light/moderate sedation during non-surgical procedures.MethodsA comprehensive literature search was performed using electronic databases (search until September 2020). The primary outcome was whether patient satisfaction was higher after deep sedation or light/moderate sedation. The secondary outcome was the relative safety of deep sedation compared with light/moderate sedation in terms of oxygen saturation, systolic blood pressure, and heart rate. The tertiary outcomes were the relative procedure and recovery times for deep versus light/moderate sedation.Data from each of the trials were combined, and calculations were made using DerSimonian and Laird random effects models. The pooled effect estimates for patient satisfaction were evaluated using relative risk (RR) with the 95% confidence interval (CI). The pooled effect estimates for continuous data are expressed as weighted mean difference with the 95% CI. We assessed heterogeneity with the Cochrane Q statistic and the I2 statistic. The risk of bias assessment and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach were used as the quality assessment method.ResultsAfter removing unrelated studies and applying the exclusion criterion, 5 articles satisfied the inclusion criteria. Patient satisfaction was significantly higher in those who received deep sedation compared with light/moderate sedation (relative risk = 1.12; 95% CI, 1.04-1.20; P = .003; Cochrane Q = 25.0; I2 = 76%).There was no significant difference in oxygen saturation, systolic blood pressure, heart rate, and procedure times according to whether the procedures were performed under deep or light/moderate sedation. However, the recovery time was significantly prolonged in patients under deep sedation.ConclusionsOur meta-analysis suggests that deep sedation resulted in improved patient satisfaction compared with light/moderate sedation. Deep sedation is recommended for patients undergoing procedures because it improves patient satisfaction. However, respiration and circulation should be carefully monitored both intra-operatively and postoperatively.
| S-EPMC8428728 | biostudies-literature