Assessing the spreading potential of an undetected case of COVID-19 in orthopaedic surgery

Retrospective Analysis of Nosocomial SARS-CoV-2 Infections in Orthopedic and Traumatological Inpatients

SARS-CoV-2 has had a measurable impact on the field of orthopedic and traumatological surgery. To date, scarce data on intramural SARS-CoV-2 infections in orthopedic and traumatological patients have been reported. Therefore, the aim of our study was to investigate the effect of nosocomial SARS-CoV-2 infections in orthopedic and traumatological inpatients regarding symptoms of infection, mortality, duration of hospitalization, and other relevant patient-dependent factors. Patients admitted to hospital for an orthopedic or traumatological indication were screened retrospectively for nosocomial SARS-CoV-2 infections and included in this study. An age-, sex-, and ICD 10-matched control group was assigned and demographic data, clinical symptoms of a SARS-CoV-2 infection as well as mortality, length of hospital stays, time to surgery, pre-existing conditions, LKF-points representing the financial effort, and the Charlson Comorbidity Index were collected. A significantly higher length of stay was observed in the SARS-CoV-2 group (25 days; 4-60; SD 12.5) when compared to the control group (11 days; 2-36; SD 7; p < 0.05). LKF points were significantly higher in the SARS-CoV-2 group (13,939 points vs. 8542 points). No significant difference in mortality could be observed. An infection with SARS-CoV-2 in inpatients significantly increases length of hospital stay and cost of treatment. Although no significant difference in mortality was found, care should be taken to avoid intramural SARS-CoV-2 infections, resulting in prolonged hospitalization, higher costs, and potentially further individual risks.

Does the COVID-19 personal protective equipment impair the surgeon's performance?

INTRODUCTION

Despite increasing vaccination rates, new viral variants of SARS-CoV-2 (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus type 2) are advancing the COVID 19 (coronavirus disease 2019) pandemic and continue to challenge the entire world. Surgical care of SARS-CoV-2 positive patients requires special protective measures. We hypothesized that "COVID-19" personal protective equipment (PPE) during surgery of SARS-CoV-2 positive or potentially positive patients would negatively affect the surgeon and thus the surgical outcome.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Ten experienced trauma surgeons participated in the study. Each surgeon performed two simulated surgeries of a distal tibial fracture on a Sawbone® under standardized conditions either wearing regular PPE or special COVID-19 PPE. Baseline values at rest were acquired for heart rate, blood pressure, saturation of peripheral oxygen (SpO₂), respiratory rate and capillary blood gas (CBG) analysis including capillary partial pressure of oxygen (pO₂) and carbon dioxide (pCO₂), followed by four different standardized tests of attentional performance (TAP). Subsequently, the surgeon performed the first surgery according to a randomly determined order, with regular or COVID-19 PPE conditions in an operation theatre. After each surgery vital signs were acquired and CBG and TAP were performed again.

RESULTS

In our simulated surgical procedure heart rate, respiratory rate, systolic and diastolic blood pressure did not show relevant differences. Percutaneously measured SpO₂ decreased with additional layers of PPE, while CBG parameters were not affected. TAP tests showed a significant impairment of attention if PPEs were compared to the baseline, but both PPEs had similar results and no meaningful differences could be measured.

CONCLUSIONS

According to our results, for surgical procedures additional PPE required during COVID-19 pandemic does not relevant affect the surgeon's mental and physical performance. Surgeries under COVID-19 PPE conditions appear safe and do not increase patient risk.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level I.

Nosocomial transmission and outbreaks of coronavirus disease 2019: the need to protect both patients and healthcare workers

OBJECTIVES

To compile current published reports on nosocomial outbreaks of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), evaluate the role of healthcare workers (HCWs) in transmission, and evaluate outbreak management practices.

METHODS

Narrative literature review.

SHORT CONCLUSION

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has placed a large burden on hospitals and healthcare providers worldwide, which increases the risk of nosocomial transmission and outbreaks to "non-COVID" patients or residents, who represent the highest-risk population in terms of mortality, as well as HCWs. To date, there are several reports on nosocomial outbreaks of SARS-CoV-2, and although the attack rate is variable, it can be as high as 60%, with high mortality. There is currently little evidence on transmission dynamics, particularly using genomic sequencing, and the role of HCWs in initiating or amplifying nosocomial outbreaks is not elucidated. There has been a paradigm shift in management practices of viral respiratory outbreaks, that includes widespread testing of patients (or residents) and HCWs, including asymptomatic individuals. These expanded testing criteria appear to be crucial in identifying and controlling outbreaks.

COVID-19 in Health-Care Workers: A Living Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Prevalence, Risk Factors, Clinical Characteristics, and Outcomes

Health care workers (HCW) are at the frontline response to the new coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), being at a higher risk of acquiring the disease, and subsequently, exposing patients and colleagues. Searches in eight bibliographic databases were performed to systematically review the evidence on the prevalence, risk factors, clinical characteristics, and prognosis of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection among HCW. Ninety-seven studies (All published in 2020), including 230,398 HCW, met the inclusion criteria. From the screened HCW using RT-PCR and the presence of antibodies, the estimated prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection was 11% (95%CI; 7%-15%) and 7% (95% CI; 4%-11%), respectively. The most frequently affected personnel were the nurses (48%. 95%CI; 41%-56%), while most of the COVID-19 positive medical personnel were working in hospitalization/non-emergency wards during the screening (43%, 95%CI;28%-59%). Anosmia, fever and myalgia were identified as the only symptoms associated with HCW SARS-CoV-2 positivity. Among RT-PCR positive HCW, 40% (95%CI;17%-65%) did not show symptoms at the time of diagnosis. Finally, 5% (95%CI;3%-8%) of the COVID-19 positive HCW developed severe clinical complications, and 0.5% (95% CI; 0.02%-1.3%) died. HCW suffer a significant burden from COVID-19, with HCW working in hospitalization/non-emergency wards and nurses being the most infected personnel.

Experience of an Orthopaedic Surgery Department Early During the COVID-19 Outbreak in Japan Including Real-Time Polymerase Chain Reaction Assay Results for SARS-CoV-2

Introduction

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) epidemic beginning December 2019 in China has now become a worldwide pandemic. With the need to develop an approach to manage orthopaedic surgeries, we aimed to evaluate the most current data on all the surgical cases in our department including the results of the reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) assay for infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2).

Methods

The monthly number of surgical cases from 2016 were reviewed, and compared the numbers of surgical cases both in elective and emergency surgery during the pandemic with the pre-pandemic period. The results of RT-PCR for SARS-CoV-2 in 94 orthopaedic surgery cases from May 13 to June 30, 2020, and clinical signs/symptoms, and laboratory data of 48 consecutive cases within a month from May 13 were also evaluated.

Results

The mean monthly number of surgeries from January to May 2020 was significantly lower than the mean number in 2019 (73.8 vs 121.9, respectively, p=0.01). The proportion of emergency surgeries in all surgeries performed in May 2020 was 35.5%, which is significantly more than the mean rate of 20.4% in 2019 (p=0.04). Hip arthroplasties and spine surgeries showed the greatest reduction, at greater than 80% and 65%, respectively. Although none of the 94 patients were positive for SARS-CoV-2, 66.7% showed signs/symptoms typical of COVID-19. The most frequent signs/symptoms were production of nasal mucus (25.5%), followed by dry cough (19.1%); and fatigue, headache, and dizziness (17.0% each). The incidence of abnormal values, which are commonly noted in COVID-19 patients, were eosinopaenia 37.5%; lymphopaenia 18.8%; thrombocytopaenia 8.3%; and elevated prothrombin time 10.4%.

Conclusions

Our results show that our RT-PCR negative patients showed signs/symptoms and abnormal laboratory values typical of COVID-19, indicating surgeons should be aware of these abnormalities in patients and the need to rule out COVID-19 before proceeding with surgery.

What do we know about SARS-CoV-2 transmission? A systematic review and meta-analysis of the secondary attack rate and associated risk factors

INTRODUCTION

Current SARS-CoV-2 containment measures rely on controlling viral transmission. Effective prioritization can be determined by understanding SARS-CoV-2 transmission dynamics. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analyses of the secondary attack rate (SAR) in household and healthcare settings. We also examined whether household transmission differed by symptom status of index case, adult and children, and relationship to index case.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, medRxiv, and bioRxiv databases between January 1 and July 25, 2020. High-quality studies presenting original data for calculating point estimates and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were included. Random effects models were constructed to pool SAR in household and healthcare settings. Publication bias was assessed by funnel plots and Egger's meta-regression test.

RESULTS

43 studies met the inclusion criteria for household SAR, 18 for healthcare SAR, and 17 for other settings. The pooled household SAR was 18.1% (95% CI: 15.7%, 20.6%), with significant heterogeneity across studies ranging from 3.9% to 54.9%. SAR of symptomatic index cases was higher than asymptomatic cases (RR: 3.23; 95% CI: 1.46, 7.14). Adults showed higher susceptibility to infection than children (RR: 1.71; 95% CI: 1.35, 2.17). Spouses of index cases were more likely to be infected compared to other household contacts (RR: 2.39; 95% CI: 1.79, 3.19). In healthcare settings, SAR was estimated at 0.7% (95% CI: 0.4%, 1.0%).

DISCUSSION

While aggressive contact tracing strategies may be appropriate early in an outbreak, as it progresses, measures should transition to account for setting-specific transmission risk. Quarantine may need to cover entire communities while tracing shifts to identifying transmission hotspots and vulnerable populations. Where possible, confirmed cases should be isolated away from the household.

What do we know about SARS-CoV-2 transmission? A systematic review and meta-analysis of the secondary attack rate and associated risk factors

INTRODUCTION

Current SARS-CoV-2 containment measures rely on controlling viral transmission. Effective prioritization can be determined by understanding SARS-CoV-2 transmission dynamics. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analyses of the secondary attack rate (SAR) in household and healthcare settings. We also examined whether household transmission differed by symptom status of index case, adult and children, and relationship to index case.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, medRxiv, and bioRxiv databases between January 1 and July 25, 2020. High-quality studies presenting original data for calculating point estimates and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were included. Random effects models were constructed to pool SAR in household and healthcare settings. Publication bias was assessed by funnel plots and Egger's meta-regression test.

RESULTS

43 studies met the inclusion criteria for household SAR, 18 for healthcare SAR, and 17 for other settings. The pooled household SAR was 18.1% (95% CI: 15.7%, 20.6%), with significant heterogeneity across studies ranging from 3.9% to 54.9%. SAR of symptomatic index cases was higher than asymptomatic cases (RR: 3.23; 95% CI: 1.46, 7.14). Adults showed higher susceptibility to infection than children (RR: 1.71; 95% CI: 1.35, 2.17). Spouses of index cases were more likely to be infected compared to other household contacts (RR: 2.39; 95% CI: 1.79, 3.19). In healthcare settings, SAR was estimated at 0.7% (95% CI: 0.4%, 1.0%).

DISCUSSION

While aggressive contact tracing strategies may be appropriate early in an outbreak, as it progresses, measures should transition to account for setting-specific transmission risk. Quarantine may need to cover entire communities while tracing shifts to identifying transmission hotspots and vulnerable populations. Where possible, confirmed cases should be isolated away from the household.