nach oben

Erschienen in:

26.05.2020 | COVID-19 | Review Article Zur Zeit gratis

The risk of COVID-19 transmission by laparoscopic smoke may be lower than for laparotomy: a narrative review

verfasst von: Yoav Mintz, Alberto Arezzo, Luigi Boni, Ludovica Baldari, Elisa Cassinotti, Ronit Brodie, Selman Uranues, MinHua Zheng, Abe Fingerhut

Erschienen in: Surgical Endoscopy | Ausgabe 8/2020

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Background

Surgical smoke is a well-recognized hazard in the operating room. At the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, surgical societies quickly published guidelines recommending avoiding laparoscopy or to consider open surgery because of the fear of transmission of SARS-CoV-2 through surgical smoke or aerosol. This narrative review of the literature aimed to determine whether there are any differences in the creation of surgical smoke/aerosol between laparoscopy and laparotomy and if laparoscopy may be safer than laparotomy.

Methods

A literature search was performed using the Pubmed, Embase and Google scholar search engines, as well as manual search of the major journals with specific COVID-19 sections for ahead-of-print publications.

Results

Of 1098 identified articles, we critically appraised 50. Surgical smoke created by electrosurgical and ultrasonic devices has the same composition both in laparoscopy and laparotomy. SARS-CoV-2 has never been found in surgical smoke and there is currently no data to support its virulence if ever it could be transmitted through surgical smoke/aerosol.

Conclusion

If laparoscopy is performed in a closed cavity enabling containment of surgical smoke/aerosol, and proper evacuation of smoke with simple measures is respected, and as long as laparoscopy is not contraindicated, we believe that this surgical approach may be safer for the operating team while the patient has the benefits of minimally invasive surgery. Evidence-based research in this field is needed for definitive determination of safety.

Pierce JS, Lacey SE, Lippert JF et al (2011) Laser-generated air contaminants from medical laser applications: a state-of-the-science review of exposure characterization, health effects, and control. J Occup Environ Hyg 8(7):447–466CrossRefPubMed

Brown J (2020) Surgical decision making in the era of COVID-19: a new set of rules. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2020.04.001 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Novara G, Giannarini G, De Nunzio C et al (2020) Risk of sars-cov-2 diffusion when performing minimally invasive surgery during the covid-19 pandemic. Eur Urol. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2020.03.027 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Veziant J, Bourdel N, Slim K (2020) Risks of viral contamination in healthcare professionals during laparoscopy in the Covid-19 pandemic. J Visceral Surg. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jviscsurg.2020.04.010 CrossRef

American College of Surgeons (2020) Clinical Guidance for Surgeons. https://www.facs.org/covid-19/clinical-guidance/surgeon-protection

Royal College of Surgeons (2020) Optimal surgical approach during the Sars-CoV-2 (COVID-19) pandemic 2020. Updated 29 March 2020. https://umbraco.surgeons.org/media/5136/optimal-surgical-approach-during-the-covid-19-pandemic_updated-version.pdf

Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES) and European Association of Endoscopic Surgery (EAES) (2020) Recommendations for Surgical Response to COVID 19 Crisis. https://www.sages.org/recommendations-surgical-response-covid-19/

Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES) (2020) Resources for Smoke & Gas Evacuation during open, laparoscopic and endoscopic Procedures. Updated March 29, 2020. https://www.sages.org/resources-smoke-gas-evacuation-during-open-laparoscopic-endoscopic-procedures/

Zheng MH, Boni L, Fingerhut A (2020) Minimally invasive surgery and the novel coronavirus outbreak: lessons learned in China and Italy. Ann Surg. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000003924 CrossRefPubMed

10.

Mintz Y, Arezzo A, Boni L et al (2020) A low cost, safe and effective method for smoke evacuation in laparoscopic surgery for suspected coronavirus patients. Ann Surg. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000003965 CrossRefPubMed

11.

Royal College of Surgeons (2020) England Covid-19 Statements. https://www.asgbi.org.uk/covid-19/covid-19-statements. Accessed 27 Apr 2020

12.

Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG (2009) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ 339:b2535CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

13.

Liu Y, Song Y, Hu X, Yan L, Zhu X (2019) Awareness of surgical smoke hazards and enhancement of surgical smoke prevention among the gynecologists. J Cancer 10(12):2788–2799. https://doi.org/10.7150/jca.31464 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

14.

Alp E, Bijl D, Bleichrodt RP et al (2006) Surgical smoke and infection control. J Hosp Infect 62(1):1–6CrossRefPubMed

15.

Ulmer BC (2008) The hazards of surgical smoke. AORN J 87(4):721–734CrossRefPubMed

16.

Heinsohn P, Jewett DL (1993) Exposure to blood-containing aerosols in the operating room: a preliminary study. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J 54:446–453CrossRefPubMed

17.

Nezhat C, Winer WK, Nezhat F, Nezhat C, Forrest D, Reeves WG (1987) Smoke from laser surgery: is there a health hazard? Lasers Surg Med 7:376–382CrossRefPubMed

18.

Brüske-Hohlfeld I, Preissler G, Jauch KW, Pitz M, Nowak D, Peters A, Wichmann HE (2008) Surgical smoke and ultrafine particles. J Occup Med Toxicol 3:31. https://doi.org/10.1186/1745-6673-3-31 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

19.

Karjalainen M, Kontunen A, Saari S, Rönkkö T, Lekkala J, Roine A, Oksala N (2018) The characterization of surgical smoke from various tissues and its implications for occupational safety. PLoS ONE 13(4):e0195274CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

20.

Ragde SF, Jorgensen R, Foreland S (2016) Characterisation of exposure to ultrafine particles from surgcial smoke by use of a fast mobility particle sizer. Ann Occup Hyg 60:860–874CrossRefPubMed

21.

Nicola JH, Nicola EM, Vieira R et al (2002) Speed of particles ejected from animal skin by CO₂ laser pulses, measured by laser Doppler velocimetry. Phys Med Biol 47(5):847–856CrossRefPubMed

22.

Nuyttens D, Schampheleire M, Baetens D, Dekeyser B (2008) Sonck, direct and indirect drift assessment means. Part 3: Field drift experiments. Commun Agric Appl Biol Sci 73:763–767PubMed

23.

Champault G, Taffinder N, Ziol M, Riskalla H, Catheline JM (1997) Cells are present in the smoke created during laparoscopic surgery. Br J Surg 84(7):993–995CrossRefPubMed

24.

Nduka CC, Poland N, Kennedy M, Dye J, Darzi A (1998) Does the ultrasonically activated scalpel release viable airborne cancer cells? Surg Endosc 12(8):1031–1034CrossRefPubMed

25.

Li CI, Pai JY, Chen CH (2020) Characterization of smoke generated during the use of surgical knife in laparotomy surgeries. J Air Waste Manag Assoc 70(3):324–332CrossRefPubMed

26.

Choi C, Do IG, Song T (2018) Ultrasonic versus monopolar energy-based surgical devices in terms of surgical smoke and lateral thermal damage (ULMOST): a randomized controlled trial. Surg Endosc 32(11):4415–4421CrossRefPubMed

27.

Barrett WL, Garber SM (2003) Surgical smoke: a review of the literature. Is this just a lot of hot air? Surg Endosc 17(6):979–987CrossRefPubMed

28.

Mallick R, Odejinmi F, Clark TJ (2020) Covid 19 pandemic and gynaecological laparoscopic surgery: knowns and unknowns. Facts Views Vis Obgyn 12(1):3–7PubMed

29.

Capizzi PJ, Clay RP, Battey MJ (1998) Microbiologic activity in laser resurfacing plume and debris. Lasers Surg Med 23(3):172–174CrossRefPubMed

30.

Kwak HD, Kim S-H, Seo YS, Song KJ (2016) Detecting hepatitis B virus in surgical smoke emitted during laparoscopic surgery. Occup Environ Med 73:857–863PubMed

31.

Rioux M, Garland A, Webster D, Reardon E (2013) HPV positive tonsillar cancer in two laser surgeons: case reports. J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 42(1):54CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

32.

Sawchuck WS, Weber PJ, Lowy DR, Dzubow LM (1989) Infectious papillomavirus in the vapor of warts treated with carbon dioxide laser or electrocoagulation: detection and protection. J Am Acad Dermatol 21:41–49CrossRef

33.

Johnson GK, Robinson WS (1991) Human immunodeficiency virus-1 (HIV-1) in the vapors of surgical power instruments. J Med Virol 33(1):47–50CrossRefPubMed

34.

Garden JM, O’Banion MK, Bakus AD, Olson C (2002) Viral disease transmitted by laser-generated plume (aerosol). Arch Dermatol 138:1303–1307CrossRefPubMed

35.

Fernstrom A, Goldblatt M (2013) Aerobiology and its role in the transmission of infectious diseases. J Pathog. https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/493960 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

36.

Bree K, Barnhill S, Rundell W (2017) The dangers of electosurgical smoke to operating room personnel: a review. Workplace Health Saf 65(11):517–526CrossRefPubMed

37.

van Doremalen N, Bushmaker T, Morris DH et al (2020) Aerosol and surface stability of SARS-CoV-2 as compared with SARS-CoV-1. NEJM 382(16):1564–1567CrossRefPubMed

38.

Morris SM, Nickles Fader A, Milad MP, Dionisi HJ (2020) Understanding the "scope" of the problem: why laparoscopy is considered safe during the COVID-19 pandemic. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2020.04.00 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

39.

Judson SD, van Doremalen N, Munster VJ (2020) Stability and viability of SARS-CoV-2 Reply. N Engl J Med. 13:382

40.

Romano F, Gusten J, De Antonellis S et al (2017) Electrosurgical smoke: ultrafine particle measurements and work environment quality in different operating theatres. Int J Environ Res Public Health. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph14020137 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

41.

Curet MJ (2004) Port site metastatses. Am J Surg 187(6):705–712CrossRefPubMed

42.

Ishida H, Murata N, Yamada H, Nomura T, Shimomura K, Fujioka M, Idezuki Y (2000) Influence of trocar placement and CO2 pneumoperitoneum on port site metastasis following laparoscopic tumor surgery. Surg Endosc 14(2):193–197CrossRefPubMed

43.

Ramirez PT, Wolf JK (2003) Levenback C Laparoscopic port-site metastases: etiology and prevention. Gynecol Oncol 91:179–189CrossRefPubMed

44.

Francis N, Dort J, Cho E, Feldman L, Keller D, Lim R, Mikami D, Phillips E, Spaniolas K, Tsuda S, Wasco K, Arulampalam T, Sheraz M, Morales S, Pietrabissa A, Asbun H, Pryor A (2020) SAGES and EAES recommendations for minimally invasive surgery during COVID-19 pandemic. Surg Endosc. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-020-07565-w CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

45.

Optimal surgical approach during the Sars-CoV-2 (COVID-19) pandemic 29th March 2020. https://umbraco.surgeons.org/media/5136/optimal-surgical-approach-during-the-covid-19-pandemic_updated-version.pdf

46.

Altman D, Bland J (1995) Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. BMJ. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.311.7003.485 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

47.

Tian Y, Rong L, Nian W, He Y (2020) Review article: gastrointestinal features in COVID-19 and the possibility of fecal transmission. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 51(9):843–851CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

48.

Wu Y, Guo C, Tang L, Hong Z, Zhou J, Dong X, Yin H, Xiao Q, Tang Y, Qu X, Kuang L, Fang X, Mishra N, Lu J, Shan H, Jiang G, Huang X (2020) Prolonged presence of SARS-CoV-2 viral RNA in fecal samples. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol 5(5):434–435CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

49.

Fingerhut A, Hanna GB, Veyrie N, Ferzli G, Millat B, Alexakis N, Leandros E (2010) Optimal trocar placement for ergonomic intracorporeal sewing and knotting in laparoscopic hiatal surgery. Am J Surg 200:519–528CrossRefPubMed

50.

Park JS, Ahn EJ, Ko DD, Kang H, Shin HY, Baek CH, Jung YH, Woo UC, Kim JY, Koo GH (2012) Effects of pneumoperitoneal pressure and position changes on respiratory mechanics during laparoscopic colectomy. Korean J Anesthesiol 63:419–424CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Titel: The risk of COVID-19 transmission by laparoscopic smoke may be lower than for laparotomy: a narrative review
verfasst von: Yoav Mintz
Alberto Arezzo
Luigi Boni
Ludovica Baldari
Elisa Cassinotti
Ronit Brodie
Selman Uranues
MinHua Zheng
Abe Fingerhut
Publikationsdatum: 26.05.2020
Verlag: Springer US
Schlagwort: COVID-19
Erschienen in: Surgical Endoscopy / Ausgabe 8/2020
Print ISSN: 0930-2794
Elektronische ISSN: 1432-2218
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-020-07652-y

Neu im Fachgebiet Chirurgie

23.04.2024 | Ablationstherapie | Nachrichten

Wie erfolgreich ist eine Re-Ablation nach Rezidiv?

23.04.2024 | Appendizitis | Nachrichten

Hinter dieser Appendizitis steckte ein Erreger

23.04.2024 | Operationsvorbereitung | Nachrichten

Mehr Schaden als Nutzen durch präoperatives Aussetzen von GLP-1-Agonisten?

19.04.2024 | EAU 2024 | Kongressbericht | Nachrichten

Ureterstriktur: Innovative OP-Technik bewährt sich

weitere anzeigen

Update Chirurgie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.

Newsletter bestellen

Aktuelle BDC Leitlinien-Webinare

S3-Leitlinie „Diagnostik und Therapie des Karpaltunnelsyndroms“

Karpaltunnelsyndrom BDC Leitlinien Webinare

CME: 2 Punkte

Das Karpaltunnelsyndrom ist die häufigste Kompressionsneuropathie peripherer Nerven. Obwohl die Anamnese mit dem nächtlichen Einschlafen der Hand (Brachialgia parästhetica nocturna) sehr typisch ist, ist eine klinisch-neurologische Untersuchung und Elektroneurografie in manchen Fällen auch eine Neurosonografie erforderlich. Im Anfangsstadium sind konservative Maßnahmen (Handgelenksschiene, Ergotherapie) empfehlenswert. Bei nicht Ansprechen der konservativen Therapie oder Auftreten von neurologischen Ausfällen ist eine Dekompression des N. medianus am Karpaltunnel indiziert.

Prof. Dr. med. Gregor Antoniadis

S2e-Leitlinie „Distale Radiusfraktur“

Radiusfraktur BDC Leitlinien Webinare

CME: 2 Punkte

Das Webinar beschäftigt sich mit Fragen und Antworten zu Diagnostik und Klassifikation sowie Möglichkeiten des Ausschlusses von Zusatzverletzungen. Die Referenten erläutern, welche Frakturen konservativ behandelt werden können und wie. Das Webinar beantwortet die Frage nach aktuellen operativen Therapiekonzepten: Welcher Zugang, welches Osteosynthesematerial? Auf was muss bei der Nachbehandlung der distalen Radiusfraktur geachtet werden?

PD Dr. med. Oliver Pieske

Dr. med. Benjamin Meyknecht

S1-Leitlinie „Empfehlungen zur Therapie der akuten Appendizitis bei Erwachsenen“

Appendizitis BDC Leitlinien Webinare

CME: 2 Punkte

Inhalte des Webinars zur S1-Leitlinie „Empfehlungen zur Therapie der akuten Appendizitis bei Erwachsenen“ sind die Darstellung des Projektes und des Erstellungswegs zur S1-Leitlinie, die Erläuterung der klinischen Relevanz der Klassifikation EAES 2015, die wissenschaftliche Begründung der wichtigsten Empfehlungen und die Darstellung stadiengerechter Therapieoptionen.

Dr. med. Mihailo Andric

Springer Medizin

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 8/2020

Utility of thoracic cage width in assessing surgical difficulty of minimally invasive esophagectomy in left lateral decubitus position

Endoscopic totally extraperitoneal approach (TEA) technique for primary ventral hernia repair

Prediction of thirty-day morbidity and mortality after laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy: data from an artificial neural network

Predicting the level of difficulty of the double-stapling technique in laparoscopic total mesorectal excision

The effect of anticoagulants on delayed bleeding after colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection

SAGES Video-Based Assessment (VBA) program: a vision for life-long learning for surgeons

Neu im Fachgebiet Chirurgie

Wie erfolgreich ist eine Re-Ablation nach Rezidiv?

Hinter dieser Appendizitis steckte ein Erreger

Mehr Schaden als Nutzen durch präoperatives Aussetzen von GLP-1-Agonisten?

Ureterstriktur: Innovative OP-Technik bewährt sich

Update Chirurgie

Aktuelle BDC Leitlinien-Webinare

S3-Leitlinie „Diagnostik und Therapie des Karpaltunnelsyndroms“

S2e-Leitlinie „Distale Radiusfraktur“

S1-Leitlinie „Empfehlungen zur Therapie der akuten Appendizitis bei Erwachsenen“