Suppr超能文献

新冠疫情时代下的环锯术再探讨:关于当前大流行期间开颅手术的观点、手术技术及并发症预防

Trepanation revisited in COVID-19 era: A perspective on craniotomy during current pandemic, surgical technique, and complications avoidance.

作者信息

Krishna Gopal, Singh Ishwar

机构信息

Department of Neurosurgery, Pt B.D. Sharma Univerity of Health Sciences, Rohtak, Haryana, India.

出版信息

Surg Neurol Int. 2022 Nov 25;13:552. doi: 10.25259/SNI_674_2022. eCollection 2022.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Craniotomy creates maximum aerosols threatening the health care workers (HCWs) of operation room. The technique of trepanation and measures to avoid complications has never been described in the literature. The time taken for craniotomy by different instruments has also never been compared.

METHODS

The study included only COVID-positive patients who underwent surgery. Craniotomy was performed using trephine, pneumatic/power drill (PD), and Hudson brace-Gigli saw (HB-GS). Trepanation as done in 32 patients. The generation of aerosols and time taken for craniotomy by these instruments was observed. The droplet spread over a waterproof graph paper of 10 × 10 sq. cm was calculated in 13 cases of all the three craniotomy methods. The technique of trepanation and maneuvers to overcome complications was discussed.

RESULTS

There was a gross difference in aerosol production and soiling of the surgical drapes, floor, surgeon's glove, gowns, face shield, goggles, etc. The average number of droplet aerosol in trepanation group was 4.76, 23.6 in drill and 21.3 in Gigli saw method. The average time taken for trepanation, PD, and HB-GS craniotomy was 4.8, 22.8, and 24.4 min, respectively. One mortality secondary to COVID was noted. All the HCWs assisting trepanation were negative for COVID-19 during postoperative follow-up of 7 days. However, 13 members of the surgical team which assisted in electric drill and HB-GS methods were COVID-positive.

CONCLUSION

Trepanation should be the preferred method of craniotomy during COVID-19 pandemic as it is associated with the least aerosolization and is the most time efficient.

摘要

背景

开颅手术会产生大量气溶胶,对手术室医护人员的健康构成威胁。文献中从未描述过环钻术技术及避免并发症的措施。不同器械进行开颅手术所需时间也从未被比较过。

方法

该研究仅纳入接受手术的新冠阳性患者。使用环钻、气动/电动钻(PD)和哈德逊支架-吉利锯(HB-GS)进行开颅手术。对32例患者进行了环钻术。观察这些器械产生气溶胶的情况以及开颅手术所需时间。在所有三种开颅方法的13例病例中,计算了液滴在10×10平方厘米防水方格纸上的扩散情况。讨论了环钻术技术及克服并发症的操作方法。

结果

在气溶胶产生以及手术单、地面、外科医生手套、手术衣、面罩、护目镜等的污染方面存在显著差异。环钻术组液滴气溶胶的平均数量为4.76个,电钻组为23.6个,吉利锯法组为21.3个。环钻术、PD和HB-GS开颅手术的平均时间分别为4.8分钟、22.8分钟和24.4分钟。记录到1例因新冠导致的死亡。所有协助环钻术的医护人员在术后7天的随访中新冠病毒检测均为阴性。然而,协助电钻和HB-GS方法的手术团队中有13名成员新冠病毒检测呈阳性。

结论

在新冠疫情期间,环钻术应作为开颅手术的首选方法,因为它产生的气溶胶最少且最省时高效。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/8745/9805615/dcb2471a29e7/SNI-13-552-g001.jpg

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验