Cargando…

Are urologists in trouble with SARS‐CoV‐2? Reflections and recommendations for specific interventions

OBJECTIVE: To assess the risk of viral infection during urological surgeries due to the possible hazards in tissue, blood, urine and aerosolised particles generated during surgery, and thus to understand the risks and make recommendations for clinical practice. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We reviewed the...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kunz, Yannic, Horninger, Wolfgang, Pinggera, Germar‐M
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7323234/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32562351
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/bju.15141
_version_ 1783551755958616064
author Kunz, Yannic
Horninger, Wolfgang
Pinggera, Germar‐M
author_facet Kunz, Yannic
Horninger, Wolfgang
Pinggera, Germar‐M
author_sort Kunz, Yannic
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: To assess the risk of viral infection during urological surgeries due to the possible hazards in tissue, blood, urine and aerosolised particles generated during surgery, and thus to understand the risks and make recommendations for clinical practice. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We reviewed the available literature on urological and other surgical procedures in patients with virus infections, such as human papillomavirus, human immunodeficiency virus and hepatitis B, and current publications on coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19). RESULTS: Several possible pathways for viral transmission appear in the literature. Recently, groups have detected severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus‐2 (SARS‐CoV‐2) in the urine and faeces, even after negative pharyngeal swabs. In addition, viral RNA can be detected in the blood and several tissues. During surgery, viral particles are released, aerosol‐borne and present a certain risk of transmission and infection. However, there is currently no evidence on the exact risk of infection from the agents mentioned above. It remains unclear whether or not viral particles in the urine, blood or faeces are infectious. CONCLUSIONS: Whether SARS‐CoV‐2 can be transmitted by aerosols remains controversial. Irrespective of this, standard surgical masks offer inadequate protection from SARS‐CoV‐2. Full personal protective equipment, including at least filtering facepiece‐2 masks and safety goggles should be used. Aerosolised particles might remain for a long time in the operating theatre and contaminate other surfaces, e.g. floors or computer input devices. Therefore, scrupulous hygiene and disinfection of surfaces must be carried out. To prevent aerosolisation during laparoscopic interventions, the pneumoperitoneum should be evacuated with suction devices. The use of virus‐proof high‐efficiency particulate air filters is recommended. Local separation of anaesthesia/intubation and the operating theatre can reduce the danger of viral transmission. Lumbar anaesthesia should be considered especially in endourology. Based on current knowledge, COVID‐19 is not a contraindication for acute urological surgery. However, if possible, as European guideline committees recommend, non‐emergency urological interventions should be postponed until negative SARS‐CoV‐2 tests become available.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7323234
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-73232342020-06-29 Are urologists in trouble with SARS‐CoV‐2? Reflections and recommendations for specific interventions Kunz, Yannic Horninger, Wolfgang Pinggera, Germar‐M BJU Int Original Articles OBJECTIVE: To assess the risk of viral infection during urological surgeries due to the possible hazards in tissue, blood, urine and aerosolised particles generated during surgery, and thus to understand the risks and make recommendations for clinical practice. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We reviewed the available literature on urological and other surgical procedures in patients with virus infections, such as human papillomavirus, human immunodeficiency virus and hepatitis B, and current publications on coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19). RESULTS: Several possible pathways for viral transmission appear in the literature. Recently, groups have detected severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus‐2 (SARS‐CoV‐2) in the urine and faeces, even after negative pharyngeal swabs. In addition, viral RNA can be detected in the blood and several tissues. During surgery, viral particles are released, aerosol‐borne and present a certain risk of transmission and infection. However, there is currently no evidence on the exact risk of infection from the agents mentioned above. It remains unclear whether or not viral particles in the urine, blood or faeces are infectious. CONCLUSIONS: Whether SARS‐CoV‐2 can be transmitted by aerosols remains controversial. Irrespective of this, standard surgical masks offer inadequate protection from SARS‐CoV‐2. Full personal protective equipment, including at least filtering facepiece‐2 masks and safety goggles should be used. Aerosolised particles might remain for a long time in the operating theatre and contaminate other surfaces, e.g. floors or computer input devices. Therefore, scrupulous hygiene and disinfection of surfaces must be carried out. To prevent aerosolisation during laparoscopic interventions, the pneumoperitoneum should be evacuated with suction devices. The use of virus‐proof high‐efficiency particulate air filters is recommended. Local separation of anaesthesia/intubation and the operating theatre can reduce the danger of viral transmission. Lumbar anaesthesia should be considered especially in endourology. Based on current knowledge, COVID‐19 is not a contraindication for acute urological surgery. However, if possible, as European guideline committees recommend, non‐emergency urological interventions should be postponed until negative SARS‐CoV‐2 tests become available. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2020-08-17 2020-12 /pmc/articles/PMC7323234/ /pubmed/32562351 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/bju.15141 Text en © 2020 The Authors BJU International published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of BJU International https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non‐commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.
spellingShingle Original Articles
Kunz, Yannic
Horninger, Wolfgang
Pinggera, Germar‐M
Are urologists in trouble with SARS‐CoV‐2? Reflections and recommendations for specific interventions
title Are urologists in trouble with SARS‐CoV‐2? Reflections and recommendations for specific interventions
title_full Are urologists in trouble with SARS‐CoV‐2? Reflections and recommendations for specific interventions
title_fullStr Are urologists in trouble with SARS‐CoV‐2? Reflections and recommendations for specific interventions
title_full_unstemmed Are urologists in trouble with SARS‐CoV‐2? Reflections and recommendations for specific interventions
title_short Are urologists in trouble with SARS‐CoV‐2? Reflections and recommendations for specific interventions
title_sort are urologists in trouble with sars‐cov‐2? reflections and recommendations for specific interventions
topic Original Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7323234/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32562351
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/bju.15141
work_keys_str_mv AT kunzyannic areurologistsintroublewithsarscov2reflectionsandrecommendationsforspecificinterventions
AT horningerwolfgang areurologistsintroublewithsarscov2reflectionsandrecommendationsforspecificinterventions
AT pinggeragermarm areurologistsintroublewithsarscov2reflectionsandrecommendationsforspecificinterventions