A study protocol for a double-blind randomised placebo-controlled trial evaluating the efficacy of carrageenan nasal and throat spray for COVID-19 prophylaxis—ICE-COVID

Introduction: At present, vaccines form the only mode of prophylaxis against COVID-19. The time needed to achieve mass global vaccination and the emergence of new variants warrants continued research into other COVID-19 prevention strategies. The severity of COVID-19 infection is thought to be associated with the initial viral load, and for infection to occur, viruses including SARS-CoV-2 must first penetrate the respiratory mucus and attach to the host cell surface receptors. Carrageenan, a sulphated polysaccharide extracted from red edible seaweed, has shown efficacy against a wide range of viruses in clinical trials through the prevention of viral entry into respiratory host cells. Carrageenan has also demonstrated in vitro activity against SARS-CoV-2. Methods and analysis: A single-centre, randomised, double-blinded, placebo-controlled phase III trial was designed. Participants randomised in a 1:1 allocation to either the treatment arm, verum Coldamaris plus (1.2 mg iota-carrageenan (Carragelose®), 0.4 mg kappa-carrageenan, 0.5% sodium chloride and purified water), or placebo arm, Coldamaris sine (0.5% sodium chloride) spray applied daily to their nose and throat for 8 weeks, while completing a daily symptom tracker questionnaire for a total of 10 weeks. Primary outcome: Acquisition of COVID-19 infection as confirmed by a positive PCR swab taken at symptom onset or seroconversion during the study. Secondary outcomes include symptom type, severity and duration, subsequent familial/household COVID-19 infection and infection with non-COVID-19 upper respiratory tract infections. A within-trial economic evaluation will be undertaken, with effects expressed as quality-adjusted life years. Discussion: This is a single-centre, phase III, double-blind, randomised placebo-controlled clinical trial to assess whether carrageenan nasal and throat spray reduces the risk of development and severity of COVID-19. If proven effective, the self-administered prophylactic spray would have wider utility for key workers and the general population. Trial registration: NCT04590365; ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04590365. Registered on 19 October 2020

Elective cancer surgery in COVID-19-free surgical pathways during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic: An international, multicenter, comparative cohort study

PURPOSE As cancer surgery restarts after the first COVID-19 wave, health care providers urgently require data to determine where elective surgery is best performed. This study aimed to determine whether COVID-19–free surgical pathways were associated with lower postoperative pulmonary complication rates compared with hospitals with no defined pathway. PATIENTS AND METHODS This international, multicenter cohort study included patients who underwent elective surgery for 10 solid cancer types without preoperative suspicion of SARS-CoV-2. Participating hospitals included patients from local emergence of SARS-CoV-2 until April 19, 2020. At the time of surgery, hospitals were defined as having a COVID-19–free surgical pathway (complete segregation of the operating theater, critical care, and inpatient ward areas) or no defined pathway (incomplete or no segregation, areas shared with patients with COVID-19). The primary outcome was 30-day postoperative pulmonary complications (pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome, unexpected ventilation). RESULTS Of 9,171 patients from 447 hospitals in 55 countries, 2,481 were operated on in COVID-19–free surgical pathways. Patients who underwent surgery within COVID-19–free surgical pathways were younger with fewer comorbidities than those in hospitals with no defined pathway but with similar proportions of major surgery. After adjustment, pulmonary complication rates were lower with COVID-19–free surgical pathways (2.2% v 4.9%; adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.62; 95% CI, 0.44 to 0.86). This was consistent in sensitivity analyses for low-risk patients (American Society of Anesthesiologists grade 1/2), propensity score–matched models, and patients with negative SARS-CoV-2 preoperative tests. The postoperative SARS-CoV-2 infection rate was also lower in COVID-19–free surgical pathways (2.1% v 3.6%; aOR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.36 to 0.76). CONCLUSION Within available resources, dedicated COVID-19–free surgical pathways should be established to provide safe elective cancer surgery during current and before future SARS-CoV-2 outbreaks

Elective Cancer Surgery in COVID-19-Free Surgical Pathways During the SARS-CoV-2 Pandemic: An International, Multicenter, Comparative Cohort Study.

PURPOSE: As cancer surgery restarts after the first COVID-19 wave, health care providers urgently require data to determine where elective surgery is best performed. This study aimed to determine whether COVID-19-free surgical pathways were associated with lower postoperative pulmonary complication rates compared with hospitals with no defined pathway. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This international, multicenter cohort study included patients who underwent elective surgery for 10 solid cancer types without preoperative suspicion of SARS-CoV-2. Participating hospitals included patients from local emergence of SARS-CoV-2 until April 19, 2020. At the time of surgery, hospitals were defined as having a COVID-19-free surgical pathway (complete segregation of the operating theater, critical care, and inpatient ward areas) or no defined pathway (incomplete or no segregation, areas shared with patients with COVID-19). The primary outcome was 30-day postoperative pulmonary complications (pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome, unexpected ventilation). RESULTS: Of 9,171 patients from 447 hospitals in 55 countries, 2,481 were operated on in COVID-19-free surgical pathways. Patients who underwent surgery within COVID-19-free surgical pathways were younger with fewer comorbidities than those in hospitals with no defined pathway but with similar proportions of major surgery. After adjustment, pulmonary complication rates were lower with COVID-19-free surgical pathways (2.2% v 4.9%; adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.62; 95% CI, 0.44 to 0.86). This was consistent in sensitivity analyses for low-risk patients (American Society of Anesthesiologists grade 1/2), propensity score-matched models, and patients with negative SARS-CoV-2 preoperative tests. The postoperative SARS-CoV-2 infection rate was also lower in COVID-19-free surgical pathways (2.1% v 3.6%; aOR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.36 to 0.76). CONCLUSION: Within available resources, dedicated COVID-19-free surgical pathways should be established to provide safe elective cancer surgery during current and before future SARS-CoV-2 outbreaks

Penetrating neck trauma and the need for surgical exploration: six-year experience within a regional trauma centre

AbstractBackground:There has been a shift towards conservative management of penetrating neck trauma in selected patients.Methods:A retrospective case note review of the management of penetrating neck trauma (2007–2013) was undertaken at our large teaching hospital and compared against best-evidenced practice.Results:Sixty-three patients were admitted over six years. The incidence of penetrating neck trauma is reducing, contrary to our belief. Most cases were knife inflicted (33 out of 63), and of these most were attempted suicide. There was a high rate of negative findings for neck explorations under general anaesthesia (18 out of 22). Only nine cases had justification for general anaesthesia exploration according to best practice.Conclusion:The rate of neck explorations under general anaesthesia has dramatically fallen, in line with best practice. The need for operative intervention in patients with penetration of the aerodigestive tract or a major vascular injury should be based on clinical features, and these have been shown to be reliable indicators prior to open exploration.</jats:sec

3D bioprinting for reconstructive surgery: Principles, applications and challenges

Despite the increasing laboratory research in the growing field of 3D bioprinting, there are few reports of successful translation into surgical practice. This review outlines the principles of 3D bioprinting including software and hardware processes, biocompatible technological platforms and suitable bioinks. The advantages of 3D bioprinting over traditional tissue engineering techniques in assembling cells, biomaterials and biomolecules in a spatially controlled manner to reproduce native tissue macro-, micro- and nanoarchitectures are discussed, together with an overview of current progress in bioprinting tissue types relevant for plastic and reconstructive surgery. If successful, this platform technology has the potential to biomanufacture autologous tissue for reconstruction, obviating the need for donor sites or immunosuppression. The biological, technological and regulatory challenges are highlighted, with strategies to overcome these challenges by using an integrated approach from the fields of engineering, biomaterial science, cell biology and reconstructive microsurgery

3D bioprinting for reconstructive surgery: Principles, applications and challenges

Despite the increasing laboratory research in the growing field of 3D bioprinting, there are few reports of successful translation into surgical practice. This review outlines the principles of 3D bioprinting including software and hardware processes, biocompatible technological platforms and suitable bioinks. The advantages of 3D bioprinting over traditional tissue engineering techniques in assembling cells, biomaterials and biomolecules in a spatially controlled manner to reproduce native tissue macro-, micro- and nanoarchitectures are discussed, together with an overview of current progress in bioprinting tissue types relevant for plastic and reconstructive surgery. If successful, this platform technology has the potential to biomanufacture autologous tissue for reconstruction, obviating the need for donor sites or immunosuppression. The biological, technological and regulatory challenges are highlighted, with strategies to overcome these challenges by using an integrated approach from the fields of engineering, biomaterial science, cell biology and reconstructive microsurgery

Personal protective equipment for surgeons during COVID-19 pandemic: systematic review of availability, usage and rationing

Abstract Background Surgeons need guidance regarding appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) during the COVID-19 pandemic based on scientific evidence rather than availability. The aim of this article is to inform surgeons of appropriate PPE requirements, and to discuss usage, availability, rationing and future solutions. Methods A systematic review was undertaken in accordance with PRISMA guidelines using MEDLINE, Embase and WHO COVID-19 databases. Newspaper and internet article sources were identified using Nexis. The search was complemented by bibliographic secondary linkage. The findings were analysed alongside guidelines from the WHO, Public Health England, the Royal College of Surgeons and specialty associations. Results Of a total 1329 articles identified, 95 studies met the inclusion criteria. Recommendations made by the WHO regarding the use of PPE in the COVID-19 pandemic have evolved alongside emerging evidence. Medical resources including PPE have been rapidly overwhelmed. There has been a global effort to overcome this by combining the most effective use of existing PPE with innovative strategies to produce more. Practical advice on all aspects of PPE is detailed in this systematic review. Conclusion Although there is a need to balance limited supplies with staff and patient safety, this should not leave surgeons treating patients with inadequate PPE. </jats:sec