Snider, Sam

AbstractObjectiveTo determine whether septal perforations have an effect on nasal swell body (NSB) size.Study DesignRetrospective cohort study.SettingTwo tertiary academic medical centers.MethodsComputed tomography maxillofacial scans of 126 patients with septal perforation and 140 control patients from November 2010 to December 2020 were evaluated. Perforation etiology was determined. Measurements included perforation length and height and swell body width, height, and length. Swell body volume was calculated.ResultsThe width and volume of the NSB are significantly smaller in perforation patients when compared to controls. The swell body is significantly smaller and thinner in perforations exceeding 14 mm in height compared to small perforations. Perforation etiology groupings into prior septal surgery, septal trauma, septal inflammatory, and mucosal vasoconstriction categories all demonstrated decreased swell body volume and width compared to controls. Inflammatory etiology had the greatest decrease in swell body size. The hemi‐swell body on the contralateral side of a septal deviation is significantly thicker than the ipsilateral side.ConclusionThe NSB is smaller in patients with septal perforation regardless of perforation size or etiology.

Abstract Background: Elastomeric respirators are reusable and reliable protection from infectious aerosol particles such as SARS-CoV-2. There is a lack of safety data for use in sterile fields limiting application to operating room settings where high-risk aerosol generating procedures are performed. We hypothesized an equivalent reduction in sterile field contamination would be achieved using an elastomeric respirator covered by a surgical mask as compared to a standard surgical mask or N95.Methods: Randomized controlled crossover experiment with repeat measurement comparing microbial and aerosol contamination of operating room surfaces for elastomeric respirators, elastomeric respirators covered by a surgical mask, N95, surgical mask, and no mask. 80 experiments were performed by participants with randomized order and balanced crossover to all masking groups (n=16 per masking group). Participants executed droplet and aerosol generating procedures while wearing: (Group 1) elastomeric respirator with mask, (Group 2) elastomeric respirator only, (Group 3) N95, and (Group 4) surgical mask. Positive control was established with the participant unmasked (Group 5). Contamination was measured by microbial growth on settling plates and optical particle counters (0.2+ and 2 um+ particles).Results: There was a reduction in microbial contamination at the sterile field (p<0.001) for all masks (Groups 1-4) compared to unmasked (Group 5). The mean colony forming units (CFU) at the sterile field was 0 CFUs for elastomeric respirator (+/- mask), N95, and surgical mask versus unmasked growing 1.875 CFUs. Compared to the unmasked control, the elastomeric respirator (+/- mask), N95, and surgical masks all resulted in a -0.75 difference in contamination (95% CI -0.91 to -0.48, p < 0.001). No significant difference in contamination between the elastomeric respirator (+/- mask) and a surgical mask was detected. No significant difference in particle counts (0.2 µm+ and 2.0 µm+) between the elastomeric respirator (+/- mask) and a standard surgical mask.Conclusion and Relevance: Elastomeric respirators with or without mitigation are as effective as a surgical mask and N95 for reducing contamination at the sterile field in an operating room. Consideration should be given to expanding the use of elastomeric respirators to operating rooms during high-risk aerosol generating procedures.

AbstractWe report a case of a 13‐year‐old boy with extensive lymphomatoid papulosis (LyP) involving his elbows, forearms, proximal thighs, and right hip, with treatment‐resistant nodules on his right forearm. He was treated with full‐body narrowband ultraviolet B and targeted photodynamic therapy (PDT) with 20% aminolevulinic acid (ALA). After two months, there was complete resolution of the right forearm nodules. Due to its minimal toxicity, PDT offers unique advantages and may be considered for pediatric LyP patients with symptomatic, localized disease resistant to conventional treatments.