Postacute coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) syndrome in maxillofacial surgeons after initial infection: A Brazilian experience

Santana, Lucas Alves da Mota; Santos, Marilene; Albuquerque, Hélio Igor Melo de; Oliveira, Eduardo Morato de; Luiz, Lucyene Miguita; Takeshita, Wilton Mitsunari; Souza, Liane Maciel de Almeida

doi:10.1017/ice.2021.401

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“… 15 , 16 , 17 A Brazilian series showed an infection rate of 75% (15 of 20) among front-line CMF surgeons during April and June 2020, and the “post-COVID-19 syndrome” or “long COVID” persisted up to 5 months. [18] Experimental data, however, discarded the spread risk during several head and neck procedures, such as tracheostomy [16] , craniotomy/craniostomy 9 , nasogastric tube insertion, swallowing testing in dysphagia patients (including endoscopy and fluoroscopy), upper airway suctioning, endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS), cautery, and nasendoscopy [19] , if standard PPEs are used. Moreover, some techniques, e.g.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Inanimate surface contamination of SARS-CoV-2 during midfacial fracture repair in asymptomatic COVID-19 patients

Pitak‐Arnnop¹,

Sirintawat²,

Tangmanee³

et al. 2022

Journal of Stomatology, Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purposes To evaluate inanimate surface contamination of SARS-CoV-2 during midfacial fracture repair (MFR) and to identify relevant aggregating factors. Methods Using a prospective non-randomised comparative study design, we enrolled a cohort of asymptomatic COVID-19 patients undergoing MFR. The predictor variables were osteofixation system (conventional titanium plates [CTiP] vs. ultrasound-assisted resorbable plates [USaRP]). The main outcomes were the presence of SARS-CoV-2 on four different surfaces. Other study variables were categorised into demographic, anatomic, and operative. Descriptive, bi- and multivariate statistics were computed. Results The sample consisted of 11 patients (27.3% females. 63.6% right side, 72.7% displaced fractures) with a mean age of 52.7 ± 20.1 years (range, 19-85). Viral spread was, on average, 1.9 ± 0.4 m. from the operative field, including most oral and orbital retractors’ tips (81.8% and 72.7%) and no virus was found at 3 m from the operative field, but no significant difference was found between 2 osteofixation types. On binary adjustments, significantly broader contamination was linked to centrolateral MFR ( P = 0.034; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.05 to 1.02), and displaced MFR > 45 min ( P = 0.022; 95% CI, 0.1 to 1.03). Conclusions USaRP, albeit presumably heavily aerosol-producing, cause similar SARS-CoV-2 distribution to CTiP. Non-surgical operating room (OR) staff should stay ≥ 3 m from the operative field, if the patient is SARS-CoV-2-positive. Enoral and orbital instruments are a potential virus source, especially during displaced MFR > 45 min and/or centrolateral MFR, emphasising an importance of appropriate patient screening and OR organisation.

show abstract