5
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
3 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found

      Nasal preparation with local anesthetic should be considered an aerosol‐generating procedure

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          There are concerns regarding the risk of coronavirus‐2019 (COVID‐19) transmission to health‐care workers during aerosol‐ generating procedures (AGPs) in otolaryngology. 1 Nasal preparation with local anesthetic is a valuable adjunct to many of these procedures as it is locally vasoconstrictive and provides topical anesthesia. 2 To date, there have been no studies on aerosol generation during nasal preparation in live patients. In this study we have aimed to characterize aerosols generated during nasal preparation in intubated patients in an operating theater (OR) setting. Patients and methods Ethics approval and informed consent was obtained. We recruited a convenience sample of 3 patients scheduled to undergo endonasal pituitary surgery. Surgery was performed in a 126‐m3 OR under 20 Pa of positive pressure. After induction of general anesthesia, nasal preparation commenced with lidocaine hydrochloride at 5 mg/spray combined with phenylephrine hydrochloride at 500 µg/spray (CoPhenylcaine Forte Spray; ENT Technologies, Hawthorn East, Victoria, Australia), This was delivered as 4 metered sprays from a 50‐mL bottle with an atomizing nozzle via each nostril. This was followed by submucosal infiltration of the nasal septum with 1.8 mL of lidocaine hydrochloride 2% with adrenaline 1:80,000 (Lignospan Special; Septodont, Saint‐Maur‐des‐Fossés, France) using a 25G needle on a dental syringe. Each nostril was then packed with 3 CoPhenylcaine Forte‒soaked cottonoid patties for a duration of 5 minutes. Particle image velocimetry (PIV) was used to detect relatively larger particles by capturing disturbances in a laser light sheet with high‐ and low‐speed cameras. 4 Trajectory lines and tracking algorithms were used to calculate airborne distances and durations (Fig. 1). Air sampling with time‐of‐flight spectrometry was used to detect relatively smaller particles, with an aerodynamic particle sizer (APS) and a mini wide‐range aerosol spectrometer. Background noise was evaluated with normal theater traffic to set detection limits. Statistical analysis was performed using an independent‐samples t test to compare mean values using open source SciPy version 1.5.2 (Scientific computing in Python). FIGURE 1 Subtracted gray‐scale high‐speed image obtained during submucosal injection showing trajectory lines used to calculate particle dispersion. Results Nasal preparation generated significantly more aerosols than baseline concentrations (p < 0.005). Specifically, the CoPhenylcaine spray produced a 40‐fold increase above background noise (Fig. 2), with particle sizes ranging from 0.1 to 5 µm, which decreased to baseline noise levels after 180 seconds and traveled to the boundaries of the theater walls. Submucosal injection produced a 50‐ to 100‐fold increase above baseline with particle sizes >75 µm, with a total airborne duration of 3 seconds traveling a distance of 1.7 meters. Due to the larger particle sizes generated, this was not captured as signal on APS measurements but was captured on the PIV system. Nasal packing with CoPhenylcaine‐soaked patties did not produce signals above background noise. FIGURE 2 Time‐series demonstrating number concentrations generated during nasal preparation measured by aerodynamic particle sizing (aps). Dashed lines represent background noise. Discussion To our knowledge, nasal preparation has not been previously assessed in live patients for its ability to generate aerosols. 3 Our data suggest that nasal preparation with local anesthetic spray and submucosal injection generates aerosols. These findings are not altogether surprising. It is likely that nasal spray generates an airflow jet that reflects off nasal walls back through the nasal aperture. Likewise, particles can be generated during submucosal injection if the bevel of the needle is not entirely submucosal, or if high enough submucosal pressures are generated that an airflow jet forces its way around the submucosal needle tip. These events are hypothesized to carry a combination of particles that are both introduced and the patient's own. The particle profile is important in understanding the risk that such events may present. 4 Nasal spray generated small particles, which are known to remain suspended in airflows for long durations and are transported long distances by airflows within the room. 5 On the other hand, injection generated large particles of >75 µm. These behave ballistically, remaining airborne for short durations, and traveling short distances before settling on surfaces. 6 These findings have important clinical implications, not just in ORs but also in clinics. First, local anesthetic spray is used commonly in an outpatient clinic setting before endonasal procedures such as nasoendoscopy or nasal cautery. 2 Our findings suggest that this step generates small particles that remain suspended for 180 seconds in the OR with 26 volume air exchanges per hour. US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommendations for similar rates of air exchange indicate that approximately 14 minutes is required to remove 99% of airborne contaminants. 7 In an outpatient setting, the rate of air exchange is much lower and thus one would expect the particles to remain suspended for longer. 8 This means that, for outpatient procedures that require nasal preparation, it is critically important to have appropriate personal protective equipment for staff. Second, nonessential staff should vacate the OR after nasal spray administration for ≥180 seconds and, during submucosal injection, should maintain a distance of ≥1.7 meters from the patient's nose. These times are likely to be longer in an outpatient setting. This study has several limitations. First, the sample size was small. Second, aerosols were not assessed as biologically active. Third, PIV requires a clean line of sight for the laser light sheet, and air sampling is a point measurement. Local anesthetic spray administration generates small particles that persist for durations dependent on the rate of room air exchange. In the OR, this duration is ≥180 seconds, but in an outpatient setting this may be longer. On the other hand, local anesthetic submucosal injection generates larger particles that travel a distance of approximately 1.7 meters. Nasal preparation should be treated as an AGP and particle‐size‒appropriate personal protective equipment should be worn.

          Related collections

          Most cited references8

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          How far droplets can move in indoor environments--revisiting the Wells evaporation-falling curve.

          A large number of infectious diseases are believed to be transmitted between people via large droplets and by airborne routes. An understanding of evaporation and dispersion of droplets and droplet nuclei is not only significant for developing effective engineering control methods for infectious diseases but also for exploring the basic transmission mechanisms of the infectious diseases. How far droplets can move is related to how far droplet-borne diseases can transmit. A simple physical model is developed and used here to investigate the evaporation and movement of droplets expelled during respiratory activities; in particular, the well-known Wells evaporation-falling curve of droplets is revisited considering the effect of relative humidity, air speed, and respiratory jets. Our simple model considers the movement of exhaled air, as well as the evaporation and movement of a single droplet. Exhaled air is treated as a steady-state non-isothermal (warm) jet horizontally issuing into stagnant surrounding air. A droplet is assumed to evaporate and move in this non-isothermal jet. Calculations are performed for both pure water droplets and droplets of sodium chloride (physiological saline) solution (0.9% w/v). We calculate the droplet lifetimes and how droplet size changes, as well as how far the droplets travel in different relative humidities. Our results indicate that a droplet's size predominately dictates its evaporation and movement after being expelled. The sizes of the largest droplets that would totally evaporate before falling 2 m away are determined under different conditions. The maximum horizontal distances that droplets can reach during different respiratory activities are also obtained. Our study is useful for developing effective prevention measures for controlling infectious diseases in hospitals and in the community at large. Our study reveals that for respiratory exhalation flows, the sizes of the largest droplets that would totally evaporate before falling 2 m away are between 60 and 100 microm, and these expelled large droplets are carried more than 6 m away by exhaled air at a velocity of 50 m/s (sneezing), more than 2 m away at a velocity of 10 m/s (coughing) and less than 1 m away at a velocity of 1 m/s (breathing). These findings are useful for developing effective engineering control methods for infectious diseases, and also for exploring the basic transmission mechanisms of the infectious diseases. There is a need to examine the air distribution systems in hospital wards for controlling both airborne and droplet-borne transmitted diseases.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found
            Is Open Access

            The flow physics of COVID-19

            Flow physics plays a key role in nearly every facet of the COVID-19 pandemic. This includes the generation and aerosolization of virus-laden respiratory droplets from a host, its airborne dispersion and deposition on surfaces, as well as the subsequent inhalation of these bioaerosols by unsuspecting recipients. Fluid dynamics is also key to preventative measures such as the use of face masks, hand washing, ventilation of indoor environments and even social distancing. This article summarizes what we know and, more importantly, what we need to learn about the science underlying these issues so that we are better prepared to tackle the next outbreak of COVID-19 or a similar disease.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Characterizations of particle size distribution of the droplets exhaled by sneeze

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                rana.dhillon@svha.org.au
                Journal
                Int Forum Allergy Rhinol
                Int Forum Allergy Rhinol
                10.1002/(ISSN)2042-6984
                ALR
                International Forum of Allergy & Rhinology
                John Wiley and Sons Inc. (Hoboken )
                2042-6976
                2042-6984
                21 December 2020
                : 10.1002/alr.22753
                Affiliations
                [ 1 ] Department of Neurosurgery St Vincent's Hospital Melbourne Fitzroy Victoria Australia
                [ 2 ] Department of Mechanical Engineering University of Melbourne Parkville Victoria Australia
                [ 3 ] Climate Science Centre CSIRO Oceans and Atmosphere Aspendale Victoria Australia
                [ 4 ] Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency Yallambie Victoria Australia
                [ 5 ] University of Melbourne and Department of Anesthesia and Acute Pain Medicine St Vincent's Hospital Melbourne Fitzroy Victoria Australia
                [ 6 ] Department of Ear, Nose and Throat Surgery St Vincent's Hospital Melbourne Fitzroy Victoria Australia
                Author notes
                [*] [* ]Correspondence to: Rana S. Dhillon, FRACS, Department of Neurology, St Vincent's Hospital Melbourne, 41 Victoria Parade, Fitzroy, Victoria 3065, Australia; e‐mail: rana.dhillon@ 123456svha.org.au

                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6975-8325
                Article
                ALR22753
                10.1002/alr.22753
                7753550
                33252844
                1261c496-b736-42f1-bb29-81d918154c7a
                © 2020 ARS‐AAOA, LLC

                This article is being made freely available through PubMed Central as part of the COVID-19 public health emergency response. It can be used for unrestricted research re-use and analysis in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source, for the duration of the public health emergency.

                History
                : 06 November 2020
                : 20 November 2020
                : 25 November 2020
                Page count
                Figures: 2, Tables: 0, Pages: 3, Words: 1398
                Categories
                Research Note
                Research Note
                Custom metadata
                2.0
                corrected-proof
                Converter:WILEY_ML3GV2_TO_JATSPMC version:5.9.6 mode:remove_FC converted:22.12.2020

                endoscopic endonasal approach to the pituitary,endoscopic minimally invasive surgery of the skull base,endoscopic sinus surgery,endoscopy

                Comments

                Comment on this article