Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36417482›Full record

ReviewPloS one2022

Measurement of airborne particle emission during surgical and percutaneous dilatational tracheostomy COVID-19 adapted procedures in a swine model: Experimental report and review of literature.

Valentin Favier, Mickael Lescroart, Benjamin Pequignot, Léonie Grimmer, Arnaud Florentin, Patrice Gallet

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 30% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Porcine model for tracheostomy training: evaluation of the content and construct validity.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2023
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Valentin FavierDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Gui de Chauliac Hospital, University Hospital of Montpellier, Montpellier, France.ORCID 0000-0002-7999-951X
Mickael LescroartIntensive Care Unit Brabois, University Regional Hospital of Nancy, Vandoeuvre-lès-Nancy, France.
Benjamin PequignotIntensive Care Unit Brabois, University Regional Hospital of Nancy, Vandoeuvre-lès-Nancy, France.
Léonie GrimmerDepartment of Hygiene, Environmental Risks and Healthcare Associated Risks, University of Lorraine, Vandoeuvre-lès-Nancy, France.
Arnaud FlorentinDepartment of Hygiene, Environmental Risks and Healthcare Associated Risks, University of Lorraine, Vandoeuvre-lès-Nancy, France.ORCID 0000-0003-2011-4016
Patrice GalletENT Department, Regional University Hospital of Nancy, University of Lorraine, Vandœuvre-lès-Nancy, France.
Centre Hospitalier Régional et Universitaire de Nancy · FRCentre National de la Recherche Scientifique · FRInserm · FRUniversité de Lorraine · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionSurgical tracheostomy (ST) and Percutaneous dilatational tracheostomy (PDT) are classified as high-risk aerosol-generating procedures and might lead to healthcare workers (HCW) infection. Albeit the COVID-19 strain slightly released since the vaccination era, preventing HCW from infection remains a major economical and medical concern. To date, there is no study monitoring particle emissions during ST and PDT in a clinical setting. The aim of this study was to monitor particle emissions during ST and PDT in a swine model.

methodsA randomized animal study on swine model with induced acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) was conducted. A dedicated room with controlled airflow was used to standardize the measurements obtained using an airborne optical particle counter. 6 ST and 6 PDT were performed in 12 pigs. Airborne particles (diameter of 0.5 to 3 μm) were continuously measured; video and audio data were recorded. The emission of particles was considered as significant if the number of particles increased beyond the normal variations of baseline particle contamination determinations in the room. These significant emissions were interpreted in the light of video and audio recordings. Duration of procedures, number of expiratory pauses, technical errors and adverse events were also analyzed.

results10 procedures (5 ST and 5 PDT) were fully analyzable. There was no systematic aerosolization during procedures. However, in 1/5 ST and 4/5 PDT, minor leaks and some adverse events (cuff perforation in 1 ST and 1 PDT) occurred. Human factors were responsible for 1 aerosolization during 1 PDT procedure. ST duration was significantly shorter than PDT (8.6 ± 1.3 vs 15.6 ± 1.9 minutes) and required less expiratory pauses (1 vs 6.8 ± 1.2).

conclusionsCOVID-19 adaptations allow preventing for major aerosol leaks for both ST and PDT, contributing to preserving healthcare workers during COVID-19 outbreak, but failed to achieve a perfectly airtight procedure. However, with COVID-19 adaptations, PDT required more expiratory pauses and more time than ST. Human factors and adverse events may lead to aerosolization and might be more frequent in PDT.

Indexed as

COVID-19TracheostomyAnimalsDilatationHumansSwineVascular Surgical Procedures

Identifiers

PMID36417482
PMCPMC9683587
OpenAlexW4309865591

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.