Surgeon Personal Protection: An Underappreciated Benefit of Positive-pressure Exhaust Suits

The effect of the surgical helmet system on intraoperative contamination in arthroplasty surgery

Aims

The surgical helmet system (SHS) was developed to reduce the risk of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI), but the evidence is contradictory, with some studies suggesting an increased risk of PJI due to potential leakage through the glove-gown interface (GGI) caused by its positive pressure. We assumed that SHS and glove exchange had an impact on the leakage via GGI.

Methods

There were 404 arthroplasty simulations with fluorescent gel, in which SHS was used (H+) or not (H-), and GGI was sealed (S+) or not (S-), divided into four groups: H+S+, H+S-, H-S+, and H-S-, varying by exposure duration (15 to 60 minutes) and frequency of glove exchanges (0 to 6 times). The intensity of fluorescent leakage through GGI was quantified automatically with an image analysis software. The effect of the above factors on fluorescent leakage via GGI were compared and analyzed.

Results

The leakage intensity increased with exposure duration and frequency of glove exchanges in all groups. When SHS was used and GGI was not sealed (H+S-), the leakage intensity via GGI had the fastest increase, consistently higher than other groups (H+S+, H-S+ and H-S-) after 30 minutes (p < 0.05) and when there were more than four instances of glove exchange (p < 0.05). Additionally, the leakage was strongly correlated with the duration of exposure (rs = 0.8379; p < 0.050) and the frequency of glove exchange (rs = 0.8198; p < 0.050) in H+S-. The correlations with duration and frequency turned weak when SHS was not used (H-) or GGI was sealed off (S+).

Conclusion

Due to personal protection, SHS is recommended in arthroplasties. Meanwhile, it is strongly recommended to seal the GGI of the inner gloves and exchange the outer gloves hourly to reduce the risk of contamination from SHS.

Joint Replacement Surgeries Can Be Safely Performed in HIV Patients

Whether joint replacement surgery can be performed safely on HIV patients is still a matter of debate. This study aimed to report the surgical efficacy and complications of joint replacement surgery in HIV patients. A total of 21 HIV patients and 27 non-HIV patients who underwent arthroplasties in our hospital were retrospectively reviewed. The 21 HIV patients received 29 joint replacement surgeries including 27 cases of total hip arthroplasty (THA) and 2 cases of total knee arthroplasty (TKA). The non-HIV patients received 16 THA, 10 TKA, and 3 unicompartmental arthroplasty (UKA). The length of hospital stay of HIV patients was significantly lower than that of non-HIV patients. At the last follow-up, there were no significant complications both in the HIV group and the non-HIV groups. No medical staff had any occupational exposure. We concluded that joint replacement surgery in HIV patients is safe and effective. Optimization of patients is key to treatment success. Strictly following the standardized protection protocol can prevent the risk of occupational exposure.

Orthopedic Surgical Helmet Systems Significantly Impair Speech Intelligibility

Surgical suits provide protection to orthopedic surgeons, but the suits and fan noise may interfere with communication between operative team members. The goal of this study was to quantify the fan sound and effect of the suit, fan, and N95 mask. Sound levels were measured using a specialized manikin and evaluated using preferred speech interference levels (PSILs), noise criterion (NC) ratings, and comparison with speech sound levels from the literature. Additionally, sound blocking due to the surgical suit was measured and combined effects of the fan and suit were described using a signal to noise ratio (SNR). The noise with the fan at medium and high speed was louder than average speech and the PSILs at these speeds were significantly higher than with the fan off. The fan NC rating of 50 to 60 exceeded the recommended range of 25 to 30 for operating rooms. The N95 mask, space suit, and distance between speaker and receiver all reduced the sound signal at the receiver's ear, with the worst case being full personal protective equipment on both and speaker distanced from receiver. The estimated SNR for the suit and fan system was negative for many frequency bands used in speech, indicating more noise than signal. Multiple measures indicated that the fan noises were at levels associated with speech interference. This noise combined with sound blocking provided by the suit produced SNRs commonly associated with noisy to very noisy environments. This study suggests the combined effects of the suit, fan, and distance may negatively impact operating room communication. [Orthopedics. 2021;44(4):208-214.].

Aerosol and droplet generation from orbital repair: Surgical risk in the pandemic era

INTRODUCTION

The highly contagious COVID-19 has resulted in millions of deaths worldwide. Physicians performing orbital procedures may be at increased risk of occupational exposure to the virus due to exposure to secretions. The goal of this study is to measure the droplet and aerosol production during repair of the inferior orbital rim and trial a smoke-evacuating electrocautery handpiece as a mitigation device.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The inferior rim of 6 cadaveric orbits was approached transconjunctivally using either standard or smoke-evacuator electrocautery and plated using a high-speed drill. Following fluorescein inoculation, droplet generation was measured by counting under ultraviolet-A (UV-A) light against a blue background. Aerosol generation from 0.300-10.000 μm was measured using an optical particle sizer. Droplet and aerosol generation was compared against retraction of the orbital soft tissue as a negative control.

RESULTS

No droplets were observed following the orbital approach using electrocautery. Visible droplets were observed after plating with a high-speed drill for 3 of 6 orbits. Total aerosol generation was significantly higher than negative control following the use of standard electrocautery. Use of smoke-evacuator electrocautery was associated with significantly lower aerosol generation in 2 of 3 size groups and in total. There was no significant increase in total aerosols associated with high-speed drilling.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

Droplet generation for orbital repair was present only following plating with high-speed drill. Aerosol generation during standard electrocautery was significantly reduced using a smoke-evacuating electrocautery handpiece. Aerosols were not significantly increased by high-speed drilling.

Surgical site infections: guidance for elective surgery during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic - international recommendations and clinical experience

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic not only had an impact on public life and healthcare facilities in general, but also affected established surgical workflows for elective procedures. The strategy to protect patients and healthcare workers from infection by SARS-CoV-2 in surgical departments has needed step-by-step development. Based on the evaluation of international recommendations and guidelines, as well as personal experiences in a clinical 'hot spot' and in a 450-bed surgical clinic, an adapted surgical site infection (SSI) prevention checklist was needed to develop concise instructions, which described roles and responsibilities of healthcare professionals that could be used for wider guidance in pandemic conditions.

METHOD

Publications of COVID-19-related recommendations and guidelines, produced by health authorities and organizations, such as WHO, US-CDC, ECDC, the American College of Surgery and the Robert Koch Institute, were retrieved, assessed and referenced up to 31st January 2020. Additionally, clinical personal experiences in Germany were evaluated and considered.

RESULTS

Part 1 of this guidance summarizes the experience of a tertiary care, surgical centre which utilized redundant hospital buildings for immediate spatial separation in a 'hot spot' COVID-19 area. Part 2 outlines the successful screening and isolation strategy in a surgical clinic in a region of Germany with outbreaks in surrounding medical centres. Part 3 provides the synopsis of personal experiences and international recommendations suggested for implementation during the COVID-19 pandemic.

CONCLUSION

Understanding of COVID-19, and SARS-CoV-2-related epidemiology, is constantly and rapidly changing, requiring continuous adaptation and re-evaluation of recommendations. Established national and local guidelines for continuation of surgical services and prevention of SSI require ongoing scrutiny and focused implementation. This manuscript presents a core facility checklist to support medical institutions to continue their clinical and surgical work during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Coronavirus Pandemic - SARS-CoV-2 in Orthopedics and Trauma Surgery

The corona virus has spread worldwide since it first appeared in China and represents a pandemic of unprecedented magnitude. The pandemic has not only social and economic effects, but even more impressive effects on the health system. If the virus spreads uncontrollably and rapidly, there is a risk of an unpredictable increase of patients with COVID-19 disease requiring hospital treatment. The capacities of a hospital can quickly reach the limit and consequently patients can no longer be adequately treated. Therefore, in the acute phase of the pandemic, it is necessary to release all hospital resources for the treatment of COVID-19 patients. Strict hygiene regulations must also be observed in order to prevent the virus from spreading unexpectedly in the hospital in order to protect patients and hospital staff. Elective operations and outpatient clinics must be cancelled in the acute phase. Special hygiene measures must be observed for urgent and unpostponable operations. These relate to the admission of the patients, the accommodation in the ward and the operative care in the operating room. In the post-acute phase, a normal surgical program can be resumed step by step. In this phase, however, clear hygiene regulations must also be observed. Regular medical meetings taking into account the current pandemic situation and the occurrence of new infections must be carried out in the hospital and the occupancy of the ward and operating room adjusted accordingly. To what extent the situation for the treatment of patients in orthopedics and trauma surgery will normalize cannot be predicted at the present time.

How the Covid-19 pandemic affected shoulder and elbow practice in Turkey?

BACKGROUND

The Covid-19 pandemic drastically affected the health care delivery worldwide. Elective surgical interventions were cancelled or postponed to avoid disease transmission and excessive consumption of critical hospital resources. The main objective for composing this survey was to document the preventive attitude and its variations against the Covid-19 pandemic in a specific group: shoulder and elbow surgeons. The secondary objective was to evaluate their perception of emergency and to envisage the "new normal" with the altered order of priority in the upcoming post-coronavirus era.

METHODS

An anonymous survey composed of 25 questions was sent to all the members of the Turkish Society of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery in April 22-29, 2020, while governmental preventive measures were maximal. A secure web-based application (SurveyMonkey Inc., San Mateo, CA, USA) was used for the composition of the survey and the analysis of the responses.

RESULTS

Eighty-eight responses were collected from 129 members of the Turkish Society of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery (68%), with a mean 13.9 years of practice in shoulder and elbow surgery. A more than 75% decrease in surgical and outpatient clinical activity was documented. Half of respondents used telemedicine, and the rate of obtaining informed consent remained low. The preventive attitude showed significant variation.

DISCUSSION

The perception of emergency and the protective measures showed a wide discrepancy among our respondents. Almost 80% of our respondents indicated the necessity of task forces for composing protocols to maintain subspecialty practice under adequate protective measures, and the subspecialty societies as the most eligible institutions to compose these criteria.

Demonstration and Mitigation of Aerosol and Particle Dispersion During Mastoidectomy Relevant to the COVID-19 Era

BACKGROUND

COVID-19 has become a global pandemic with a dramatic impact on healthcare systems. Concern for viral transmission necessitates the investigation of otologic procedures that use high-speed drilling instruments, including mastoidectomy, which we hypothesized to be an aerosol-generating procedure.

METHODS

Mastoidectomy with a high-speed drill was simulated using fresh-frozen cadaveric heads with fluorescein solution injected into the mastoid air cells. Specimens were drilled for 1-minute durations in test conditions with and without a microscope. A barrier drape was fashioned from a commercially available drape (the OtoTent). Dispersed particulate matter was quantified in segments of an octagonal test grid measuring 60 cm in radius.

RESULTS

Drilling without a microscope dispersed fluorescent particles 360 degrees, with the areas of highest density in quadrants near the surgeon and close to the surgical site. Using a microscope or varying irrigation rates did not significantly reduce particle density or percent surface area with particulate. Using the OtoTent significantly reduced particle density and percent surface area with particulate across the segments of the test grid beyond 30 cm (which marked the boundary of the OtoTent) compared with the microscope only and no microscope test conditions (Kruskall-Wallis test, p = 0.0066).

CONCLUSIONS

Mastoidectomy with a high-speed drill is an aerosol-generating procedure, a designation that connotes the potential high risk of viral transmission and need for higher levels of personal protective equipment. A simple barrier drape significantly reduced particulate dispersion in this study and could be an effective mitigation strategy in addition to appropriate personal protective equipment.

American Neurotology Society, American Otological Society, and American Academy of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Foundation Guide to Enhance Otologic and Neurotologic Care During the COVID-19 Pandemic

: This combined American Neurotology Society, American Otological Society, and American Academy of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery Foundation document aims to provide guidance during the coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19) on 1) "priority" of care for otologic and neurotologic patients in the office and operating room, and 2) optimal utilization of personal protective equipment. Given the paucity of evidence to inform otologic and neurotologic best practices during COVID-19, the recommendations herein are based on relevant peer-reviewed articles, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention COVID-19 guidelines, United States and international hospital policies, and expert opinion. The suggestions presented here are not meant to be definitive, and best practices will undoubtedly change with increasing knowledge and high-quality data related to COVID-19. Interpretation of this guidance document is dependent on local factors including prevalence of COVID-19 in the surgeons' local community. This is not intended to set a standard of care, and should not supersede the clinician's best judgement when managing specific clinical concerns and/or regional conditions.Access to otologic and neurotologic care during and after the COVID-19 pandemic is dependent upon adequate protection of physicians, audiologists, and ancillary support staff. Otolaryngologists and associated staff are at high risk for COVID-19 disease transmission based on close contact with mucosal surfaces of the upper aerodigestive tract during diagnostic evaluation and therapeutic procedures. While many otologic and neurotologic conditions are not imminently life threatening, they have a major impact on communication, daily functioning, and quality of life. In addition, progression of disease and delay in treatment can result in cranial nerve deficits, intracranial and life-threatening complications, and/or irreversible consequences. In this regard, many otologic and neurotologic conditions should rightfully be considered "urgent," and almost all require timely attention to permit optimal outcomes. It is reasonable to proceed with otologic and neurotologic clinic visits and operative cases based on input from expert opinion of otologic care providers, clinic/hospital administration, infection prevention and control specialists, and local and state public health leaders. Significant regional variations in COVID-19 prevalence exist; therefore, physicians working with local municipalities are best suited to make determinations on the appropriateness and timing of otologic and neurotologic care.

Can surgery follow the dictates of the pandemic "keep your distance"? Requirements with COVID-19 for hygiene, resources and the team

Since the beginning of the pandemic, there have been restrictions in the daily care of surgical patients - both elective and emergency. Readying supply capacities and establishing isolation areas and areas for suspected cases in the clinics have led to keeping beds free for treating (suspected) COVID-19 cases. It was therefore necessary to temporarily postpone elective surgery. Now, elective care can be gradually resumed with the second phase of the pandemic in Germany. However, it remains the order of the day to adapt pre-, intra- and post-operative procedures to the new COVID-19 conditions while maintaining specialized hygiene measures. This concerns the correct procedure for the use of personal protective materials as well as process adjustment for parallel treatment of positive and negative patients in the central OR, and handling of aerosols in the operating theater, operating room, and surgical site under consideration of staff and patient protection. Although dealing with surgical smoke in the operating theater has long been criticized, COVID-19 is forcing a renaissance in this area. Finally, the choice of surgical method, whether open surgery or minimally invasive procedures, is critical in determining how many colleagues are exposed to the risk of infection from COVID-19 patients, sometimes for hours. Here, robot-assisted surgery can comply with the pandemic's requirement to "keep your distance" in a unique way, since the surgeon can operate at virtually any distance from the surgical site, at least with regard to aerosol formation and exposure.

Personal Protective Equipment and COVID-19: A Review for Surgeons

: There is a long history of personal protective equipment (PPE) used by the surgeon to minimize the transmission of various pathogens. In the context of the present coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic there is significant controversy as to what forms of PPE are appropriate or adequate. This review aims to describe the pathogenic mechanism and route of spread of the causative virus, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus, as it pertains to accumulated published data from experienced centers globally. The various forms of PPE that are both available and appropriate are addressed. There are options in the form of eyewear, gloves, masks, respirators, and gowns. The logical and practical utilization of these should be data driven and evolve based on both experience and data. Last, situations specific to surgical populations are addressed. We aim to provide granular collective data that has thus far been published and that can be used as a reference for optimal PPE choices in the perioperative setting for surgical teams.

Operating in a Pandemic: Lessons and Strategies from an Orthopaedic Unit at the Epicenter of COVID-19 in Singapore

➤With severe limitations in manpower, facilities, and equipment, and the concern for nosocomial transmission, operating in a pandemic is fraught with danger from multiple fronts. ➤Strategies to mitigate nosocomial spread include prioritization of existing patients, triaging and treatment of new patient encounters, infection control protocols, perioperative considerations, manpower management, and novel strategies for interdisciplinary interaction and education. ➤The decision to proceed with or postpone surgery should be based on the urgency of the surgical procedure and the physiological health of the patient. ➤When performing an operation on a patient who has suspected or confirmed infection with novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), personal protection equipment should include hair covers, face shields or goggles, N95 respirator masks, a blood-borne pathogen-resistant surgical gown, shoe covers, and double-gloving with single-use gloves. ➤Loose-fitting, powered air-purifying respirators should be considered for prolonged surgeries. ➤An astutely formulated and comprehensive business continuity plan is an orthopaedic unit’s best strategy for maintaining critical standards, discipline, and morale in severe and prolonged outbreaks.

Dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic in orthopaedics: experiences and procedure in Germany

AIMS

The worldwide COVID-19 pandemic is directly impacting the field of orthopaedic surgery and traumatology with postponed operations, changed status of planned elective surgeries and acute emergencies in patients with unknown infection status. To this point, Germany's COVID-19 infection numbers and death rate have been lower than those of many other nations.

METHODS

This article summarizes the current regimen used in the field of orthopaedics in Germany during the COVID-19 pandemic. Internal university clinic guidelines, latest research results, expert consensus, and clinical experiences were combined in this article guideline.

RESULTS

Every patient, with and without symptoms, should be screened for COVID-19 before hospital admission. Patients should be assigned to three groups (infection status unknown, confirmed, or negative). Patients with unknown infection status should be considered as infectious. Dependent of the infection status and acuity of the symptoms, patients are assigned to a COVID-19-free or affected zone of the hospital. Isolation, hand hygiene, and personal protective equipment is essential. Hospital personnel directly involved in the care of COVID-19 patients should be tested on a weekly basis independently of the presence of clinical symptoms, staff in the COVID-19-free zone on a biweekly basis. Class 1a operation rooms with laminar air flow and negative pressure are preferred for surgery in COVID-19 patients. Electrocautery should only be utilized with a smoke suction system. In cases of unavoidable elective surgery, a self-imposed quarantine of 14 days is recommended prior to hospital admission.

CONCLUSION

During the current COVID-19 pandemic, orthopaedic patients admitted to the hospital should be treated based on an interdisciplinary algorithm, strictly separating infectious and non-infectious cases.Cite this article: Bone Joint Open 2020;1-6:309-315.

Dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic in orthopaedics: experiences and procedure in Germany

Aims

The worldwide COVID-19 pandemic is directly impacting the field of orthopaedic surgery and traumatology with postponed operations, changed status of planned elective surgeries and acute emergencies in patients with unknown infection status. To this point, Germany's COVID-19 infection numbers and death rate have been lower than those of many other nations.

Methods

This article summarizes the current regimen used in the field of orthopaedics in Germany during the COVID-19 pandemic. Internal university clinic guidelines, latest research results, expert consensus, and clinical experiences were combined in this article guideline.

Results

Every patient, with and without symptoms, should be screened for COVID-19 before hospital admission. Patients should be assigned to three groups (infection status unknown, confirmed, or negative). Patients with unknown infection status should be considered as infectious. Dependent of the infection status and acuity of the symptoms, patients are assigned to a COVID-19-free or affected zone of the hospital. Isolation, hand hygiene, and personal protective equipment is essential. Hospital personnel directly involved in the care of COVID-19 patients should be tested on a weekly basis independently of the presence of clinical symptoms, staff in the COVID-19-free zone on a biweekly basis. Class 1a operation rooms with laminar air flow and negative pressure are preferred for surgery in COVID-19 patients. Electrocautery should only be utilized with a smoke suction system. In cases of unavoidable elective surgery, a self-imposed quarantine of 14 days is recommended prior to hospital admission.

Conclusion

During the current COVID-19 pandemic, orthopaedic patients admitted to the hospital should be treated based on an interdisciplinary algorithm, strictly separating infectious and non-infectious cases. Cite this article: Bone Joint Open 2020;1-6:309–315.

Personal protective equipment for preventing highly infectious diseases due to exposure to contaminated body fluids in healthcare staff

BACKGROUND

In epidemics of highly infectious diseases, such as Ebola, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), or coronavirus (COVID-19), healthcare workers (HCW) are at much greater risk of infection than the general population, due to their contact with patients' contaminated body fluids. Personal protective equipment (PPE) can reduce the risk by covering exposed body parts. It is unclear which type of PPE protects best, what is the best way to put PPE on (i.e. donning) or to remove PPE (i.e. doffing), and how to train HCWs to use PPE as instructed.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate which type of full-body PPE and which method of donning or doffing PPE have the least risk of contamination or infection for HCW, and which training methods increase compliance with PPE protocols.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL to 20 March 2020.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all controlled studies that evaluated the effect of full-body PPE used by HCW exposed to highly infectious diseases, on the risk of infection, contamination, or noncompliance with protocols. We also included studies that compared the effect of various ways of donning or doffing PPE, and the effects of training on the same outcomes.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected studies, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias in included trials. We conducted random-effects meta-analyses were appropriate.

MAIN RESULTS

Earlier versions of this review were published in 2016 and 2019. In this update, we included 24 studies with 2278 participants, of which 14 were randomised controlled trials (RCT), one was a quasi-RCT and nine had a non-randomised design. Eight studies compared types of PPE. Six studies evaluated adapted PPE. Eight studies compared donning and doffing processes and three studies evaluated types of training. Eighteen studies used simulated exposure with fluorescent markers or harmless microbes. In simulation studies, median contamination rates were 25% for the intervention and 67% for the control groups. Evidence for all outcomes is of very low certainty unless otherwise stated because it is based on one or two studies, the indirectness of the evidence in simulation studies and because of risk of bias. Types of PPE The use of a powered, air-purifying respirator with coverall may protect against the risk of contamination better than a N95 mask and gown (risk ratio (RR) 0.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.17 to 0.43) but was more difficult to don (non-compliance: RR 7.5, 95% CI 1.81 to 31.1). In one RCT (59 participants) coveralls were more difficult to doff than isolation gowns (very low-certainty evidence). Gowns may protect better against contamination than aprons (small patches: mean difference (MD) -10.28, 95% CI -14.77 to -5.79). PPE made of more breathable material may lead to a similar number of spots on the trunk (MD 1.60, 95% CI -0.15 to 3.35) compared to more water-repellent material but may have greater user satisfaction (MD -0.46, 95% CI -0.84 to -0.08, scale of 1 to 5). According to three studies that tested more recently introduced full-body PPE ensembles, there may be no difference in contamination. Modified PPE versus standard PPE The following modifications to PPE design may lead to less contamination compared to standard PPE: sealed gown and glove combination (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.78), a better fitting gown around the neck, wrists and hands (RR 0.08, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.55), a better cover of the gown-wrist interface (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.78, low-certainty evidence), added tabs to grab to facilitate doffing of masks (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.80) or gloves (RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.31). Donning and doffing Using Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommendations for doffing may lead to less contamination compared to no guidance (small patches: MD -5.44, 95% CI -7.43 to -3.45). One-step removal of gloves and gown may lead to less bacterial contamination (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.77) but not to less fluorescent contamination (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.28) than separate removal. Double-gloving may lead to less viral or bacterial contamination compared to single gloving (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.66) but not to less fluorescent contamination (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.28). Additional spoken instruction may lead to fewer errors in doffing (MD -0.9, 95% CI -1.4 to -0.4) and to fewer contamination spots (MD -5, 95% CI -8.08 to -1.92). Extra sanitation of gloves before doffing with quaternary ammonium or bleach may decrease contamination, but not alcohol-based hand rub. Training The use of additional computer simulation may lead to fewer errors in doffing (MD -1.2, 95% CI -1.6 to -0.7). A video lecture on donning PPE may lead to better skills scores (MD 30.70, 95% CI 20.14 to 41.26) than a traditional lecture. Face-to-face instruction may reduce noncompliance with doffing guidance more (odds ratio 0.45, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.98) than providing folders or videos only.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found low- to very low-certainty evidence that covering more parts of the body leads to better protection but usually comes at the cost of more difficult donning or doffing and less user comfort. More breathable types of PPE may lead to similar contamination but may have greater user satisfaction. Modifications to PPE design, such as tabs to grab, may decrease the risk of contamination. For donning and doffing procedures, following CDC doffing guidance, a one-step glove and gown removal, double-gloving, spoken instructions during doffing, and using glove disinfection may reduce contamination and increase compliance. Face-to-face training in PPE use may reduce errors more than folder-based training. We still need RCTs of training with long-term follow-up. We need simulation studies with more participants to find out which combinations of PPE and which doffing procedure protects best. Consensus on simulation of exposure and assessment of outcome is urgently needed. We also need more real-life evidence. Therefore, the use of PPE of HCW exposed to highly infectious diseases should be registered and the HCW should be prospectively followed for their risk of infection.

Personal protective equipment for preventing highly infectious diseases due to exposure to contaminated body fluids in healthcare staff

BACKGROUND

In epidemics of highly infectious diseases, such as Ebola, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), or coronavirus (COVID-19), healthcare workers (HCW) are at much greater risk of infection than the general population, due to their contact with patients' contaminated body fluids. Personal protective equipment (PPE) can reduce the risk by covering exposed body parts. It is unclear which type of PPE protects best, what is the best way to put PPE on (i.e. donning) or to remove PPE (i.e. doffing), and how to train HCWs to use PPE as instructed.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate which type of full-body PPE and which method of donning or doffing PPE have the least risk of contamination or infection for HCW, and which training methods increase compliance with PPE protocols.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL to 20 March 2020.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all controlled studies that evaluated the effect of full-body PPE used by HCW exposed to highly infectious diseases, on the risk of infection, contamination, or noncompliance with protocols. We also included studies that compared the effect of various ways of donning or doffing PPE, and the effects of training on the same outcomes.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected studies, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias in included trials. We conducted random-effects meta-analyses were appropriate.

MAIN RESULTS

Earlier versions of this review were published in 2016 and 2019. In this update, we included 24 studies with 2278 participants, of which 14 were randomised controlled trials (RCT), one was a quasi-RCT and nine had a non-randomised design. Eight studies compared types of PPE. Six studies evaluated adapted PPE. Eight studies compared donning and doffing processes and three studies evaluated types of training. Eighteen studies used simulated exposure with fluorescent markers or harmless microbes. In simulation studies, median contamination rates were 25% for the intervention and 67% for the control groups. Evidence for all outcomes is of very low certainty unless otherwise stated because it is based on one or two studies, the indirectness of the evidence in simulation studies and because of risk of bias. Types of PPE The use of a powered, air-purifying respirator with coverall may protect against the risk of contamination better than a N95 mask and gown (risk ratio (RR) 0.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.17 to 0.43) but was more difficult to don (non-compliance: RR 7.5, 95% CI 1.81 to 31.1). In one RCT (59 participants), people with a long gown had less contamination than those with a coverall, and coveralls were more difficult to doff (low-certainty evidence). Gowns may protect better against contamination than aprons (small patches: mean difference (MD) -10.28, 95% CI -14.77 to -5.79). PPE made of more breathable material may lead to a similar number of spots on the trunk (MD 1.60, 95% CI -0.15 to 3.35) compared to more water-repellent material but may have greater user satisfaction (MD -0.46, 95% CI -0.84 to -0.08, scale of 1 to 5). Modified PPE versus standard PPE The following modifications to PPE design may lead to less contamination compared to standard PPE: sealed gown and glove combination (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.78), a better fitting gown around the neck, wrists and hands (RR 0.08, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.55), a better cover of the gown-wrist interface (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.78, low-certainty evidence), added tabs to grab to facilitate doffing of masks (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.80) or gloves (RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.31). Donning and doffing Using Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommendations for doffing may lead to less contamination compared to no guidance (small patches: MD -5.44, 95% CI -7.43 to -3.45). One-step removal of gloves and gown may lead to less bacterial contamination (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.77) but not to less fluorescent contamination (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.28) than separate removal. Double-gloving may lead to less viral or bacterial contamination compared to single gloving (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.66) but not to less fluorescent contamination (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.28). Additional spoken instruction may lead to fewer errors in doffing (MD -0.9, 95% CI -1.4 to -0.4) and to fewer contamination spots (MD -5, 95% CI -8.08 to -1.92). Extra sanitation of gloves before doffing with quaternary ammonium or bleach may decrease contamination, but not alcohol-based hand rub. Training The use of additional computer simulation may lead to fewer errors in doffing (MD -1.2, 95% CI -1.6 to -0.7). A video lecture on donning PPE may lead to better skills scores (MD 30.70, 95% CI 20.14 to 41.26) than a traditional lecture. Face-to-face instruction may reduce noncompliance with doffing guidance more (odds ratio 0.45, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.98) than providing folders or videos only.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found low- to very low-certainty evidence that covering more parts of the body leads to better protection but usually comes at the cost of more difficult donning or doffing and less user comfort, and may therefore even lead to more contamination. More breathable types of PPE may lead to similar contamination but may have greater user satisfaction. Modifications to PPE design, such as tabs to grab, may decrease the risk of contamination. For donning and doffing procedures, following CDC doffing guidance, a one-step glove and gown removal, double-gloving, spoken instructions during doffing, and using glove disinfection may reduce contamination and increase compliance. Face-to-face training in PPE use may reduce errors more than folder-based training. We still need RCTs of training with long-term follow-up. We need simulation studies with more participants to find out which combinations of PPE and which doffing procedure protects best. Consensus on simulation of exposure and assessment of outcome is urgently needed. We also need more real-life evidence. Therefore, the use of PPE of HCW exposed to highly infectious diseases should be registered and the HCW should be prospectively followed for their risk of infection.