Background: The German government has made it mandatory to wear respiratory masks covering mouth and nose (MNC) as an effective strategy to fight SARS-CoV-2 infections. In many countries, this directive has been extended on shopping malls or public transportation. The aim of this paper is to critically analyze the statutory regulation to wear protective masks during the COVID-19 crisis from a medical standpoint. Methods: We performed an extensive query of the most recent publications addressing the prevention of viral infections including the use of face masks in the community as a method to prevent the spread of the infection. We addressed the issues of practicability, professional use, and acceptability based on the community and the environment where the user resided. Results: Upon our critical review of the available literature, we found only weak evidence for wearing a face mask as an efficient hygienic tool to prevent the spread of a viral infection. However, the use of MNC seems to be linked to relevant protection during close contact scenarios by limiting pathogen-containing aerosol and liquid droplet dissemination. Importantly, we found evidence for significant respiratory compromise in patients with severe obstructive pulmonary disease, secondary to the development of hypercapnia. This could also happen in patients with lung infections, with or without SARS-CoV-2. Conclusion: Epidemiologists currently emphasize that wearing MNC will effectively interrupt airborne infections in the community. The government and the politicians have followed these recommendations and used them to both advise and, in some cases, mandate the general population to wear MNC in public locations. Overall, the results seem to suggest that there are some clinically relevant scenarios where the use of MNC necessitates more defined recommendations. Our critical evaluation of the literature both highlights the protective effects of certain types of face masks in defined risk groups, and emphasizes their potential risks.

In the human population, social contacts are a key for transmission of bacteria and viruses. The use of face masks seems to be critical to prevent the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 for the period, in which therapeutic interventions are lacking. In this review, we describe the history of masks from the middle age to modern times.

Radiation therapy is an integral part of the multidisciplinary management of breast cancer. Regional lymph node irradiation in younger trials seems to provide superior target coverage as well as a reduction in long-term toxicity resulting in a small benefit in the overall survival rate. For partial breast irradiation there are now two large trials available which support the role of partial breast irradiation in low risk breast cancer patients. Multiple randomized trials have established that a sequentially applied dose to the tumor bed improves local control with the cost of worse cosmetic results.

Background The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) is associated with a wide clinical spectrum of skin manifestations, including urticarial, vesicular, vasculitic and chilblain‐like lesions. Recently, delayed skin reactions have been reported in 1% individuals following mRNA vaccination against SARS-CoV-2. The exact pathophysiology and the risk factors still remain unclear. Patients and methods 6821 employees and patients were vaccinated at our institutions between February and June 2021. Every patient received two doses of the mRNA-1273 vaccine in our hospitals, and reported back in case of any side effects which were collected in our hospital managed database. Results Eleven of 6821 vaccinated patients (0.16%) developed delayed skin reactions after either the first or second dose of the mRNA-1273 vaccine against SARS-CoV-2. Eight of 11 patients (73%) developed a rash after the first dose, while in 3/11 (27%), the rash occurred after the second dose. More females (9/11) were affected. Four of 11 patients required antihistamines, with two needing additional topical steroids. All the cutaneous manifestations resolved within 14 days. None of the skin reactions after the first dose of the vaccine prevented the administration of the second dose. There were no long-term cutaneous sequelae in any of the affected individuals. Conclusion Our data suggests that skin reactions after the use of mRNA-1273 vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 are possible, but rare. Further studies need to be done to understand the pathophysiology of these lesions.