How Efficient Are Isolation Protocols? Outcome of Isolation Protocol in Surgery during COVID-19 Pandemic: A Single Institute Experience.
Journal
Surgery research and practice
ISSN: 2356-7759
Titre abrégé: Surg Res Pract
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101628730
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2023
2023
Historique:
received:
04
11
2022
revised:
04
02
2023
accepted:
07
03
2023
medline:
11
4
2023
entrez:
10
4
2023
pubmed:
11
4
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The timing of screening for SARS-CoV-2 preoperatively by RT-PCR/CBNAAT, isolation protocols in preoperative wards, operation theatres, and postoperative wards are not well established. Evaluating the effectiveness of maintaining three pathways of two COVID-19 negative pathways (1) immediate testing pathway (2) isolation, or quarantine for five days and testing prior to surgery pathway, and (3) the tested COVID-19-positive pathway, was the aim of the study. The primary objective was to assess the utility and outcome of the two COVID-19 negative pathways adopted before surgery in terms of infectivity (seroconversion; COVID-19 positivity rate before surgery and symptomatic COVID-19 disease after surgery). The secondary objective was to derive a practical protocol for isolation or quarantine for emergency and elective surgery. Enrolled patients were grouped based on the need for surgery; Group-1 emergency basis, Group-2 urgent basis, and Group-3 COVID-19 positive and the three channels were kept separate with separate dedicated healthcare staff for each channel. There were 199 (4.56%) COVID-19-positive patients, of whom 80 (40%) were operated. COVID-19 positivity rate was low in Group 2 (3% vs. Group 1, 11%). There was no seroconversion from negative to positive in our patients during the peri-operative period. COVID-19 positivity rate in Group-2 was significantly less. None of the COVID-19-negative patients turned symptomatic and the probability of seroconversion from COVID-19-negative was less during the peri-operative period. The isolation protocol of non-COVID-19 positive patients with the separate channel is effective.
Sections du résumé
Background
UNASSIGNED
The timing of screening for SARS-CoV-2 preoperatively by RT-PCR/CBNAAT, isolation protocols in preoperative wards, operation theatres, and postoperative wards are not well established.
Methods
UNASSIGNED
Evaluating the effectiveness of maintaining three pathways of two COVID-19 negative pathways (1) immediate testing pathway (2) isolation, or quarantine for five days and testing prior to surgery pathway, and (3) the tested COVID-19-positive pathway, was the aim of the study. The primary objective was to assess the utility and outcome of the two COVID-19 negative pathways adopted before surgery in terms of infectivity (seroconversion; COVID-19 positivity rate before surgery and symptomatic COVID-19 disease after surgery). The secondary objective was to derive a practical protocol for isolation or quarantine for emergency and elective surgery. Enrolled patients were grouped based on the need for surgery; Group-1 emergency basis, Group-2 urgent basis, and Group-3 COVID-19 positive and the three channels were kept separate with separate dedicated healthcare staff for each channel.
Results
UNASSIGNED
There were 199 (4.56%) COVID-19-positive patients, of whom 80 (40%) were operated. COVID-19 positivity rate was low in Group 2 (3% vs. Group 1, 11%). There was no seroconversion from negative to positive in our patients during the peri-operative period.
Conclusion
UNASSIGNED
COVID-19 positivity rate in Group-2 was significantly less. None of the COVID-19-negative patients turned symptomatic and the probability of seroconversion from COVID-19-negative was less during the peri-operative period. The isolation protocol of non-COVID-19 positive patients with the separate channel is effective.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37033690
doi: 10.1155/2023/5774071
pmc: PMC10081896
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
5774071Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2023 Rohan Chandra R. Gatty et al.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.
Références
Euro Surveill. 2020 Jan;25(3):
pubmed: 31992387
Br J Surg. 2020 Sep;107(10):e442
pubmed: 32749676
Ann Surg. 2020 Aug;272(2):e58-e60
pubmed: 32675497
J Virol. 2020 Mar 17;94(7):
pubmed: 31996437
J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2021 Mar;28(3):481-489
pubmed: 33359742
Am J Infect Control. 2021 Jan;49(1):21-29
pubmed: 32659413
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2020 Jun 3;102(11):946-950
pubmed: 32282412
Ann Intern Med. 2020 May 05;172(9):577-582
pubmed: 32150748
Anaesthesia. 2021 Jun;76(6):748-758
pubmed: 33690889
Gynecol Oncol. 2020 Aug;158(2):236-243
pubmed: 32532460
Can J Anaesth. 2020 Jun;67(6):756-758
pubmed: 32144591
Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2021 Jun;42(6):790-791
pubmed: 32616120
Ann Surg. 2020 Jul;272(1):e27-e29
pubmed: 32221117
Ann Surg. 2020 Jul;272(1):e1-e2
pubmed: 32209891
Lancet Oncol. 2021 Feb;22(2):155
pubmed: 33539736
Infect Dis Poverty. 2021 Sep 17;10(1):119
pubmed: 34535192
J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2020 Jun 1;28(11):451-463
pubmed: 32282441
World J Surg. 2020 Aug;44(8):2477-2481
pubmed: 32418028
World J Emerg Surg. 2020 Apr 7;15(1):25
pubmed: 32264898
JAMA Surg. 2020 Aug 1;155(8):691-702
pubmed: 32530453
Biosens Bioelectron. 2021 Jan 15;172:112752
pubmed: 33126180
Am J Surg. 2020 Jun;219(6):900-902
pubmed: 32312477
J Orthop Sci. 2021 Jan;26(1):179-181
pubmed: 33199087