Miguel Mayo-Yánez* (1,2,3), Christian Calvo-Henríquez (1,3,4), Jérôme R Lechien (1,5,6), Nicolas Fakhry (1,7), Tareck Ayad (1,8), Carlos Chiesa-Estomba (1,9)
(1)    Task Force COVID-19 of the Young-Otolaryngologists of the International Federations of Oto-rhino-laryngological Societies (YO-IFOS).
(2)    Otorhinolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery Department, Complexo Hospitalario Universitario A Coruña (CHUAC), A Coruña, Galicia, Spain.
(3)    Clinical Research in Medicine, International Center for Doctorate and Advanced Studies (CIEDUS), Universidade de Santiago de Compostela (USC), Santiago de Compostela, Galicia, Spain.
(4)    Otorhinolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery Department, Complexo Hospitalario Universitario Santiago de Compostela (CHUS), Santiago de Compostela, Galicia, Spain.
(5)    Human Anatomy & Experimental Oncology Department, Faculty of Medicine UMONS Research Institute for Health Sciences and Technology, University of Mons (UMons), Mons, Belgium
(6)    Otorhinolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery Department, CHU de Bruxelles, CHU Saint-Pierre, School of Medicine, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium.
(7)    Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery Department, Universitary Hospital of la Conception Marseille, France
(8)    Division of Otolaryngology - Head & Neck Surgery, Centre Hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal, Montreal, Canada
(9)    Otorhinolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery Department, Hospital Universitario Donostia, Donostia, Gipuzkoa, Spain
 
*Correspondence: Otorhinolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery Department, Complexo Hospitalario Universitario A Coruña (CHUAC). As Xubias 84, 15006, A Coruña, Spain. miguel.mayo.yanez@sergas.es
 
DISCLOSURES:
There was no conflict of interest and authors have nothing to declare. This research does not involve human participants.
 
ABSTRACT:
Background: Guidelines for ultrasonic devices use are imperative because infectious aerosols arising from airway procedures were a key etiologic factor in prior coronavirus outbreaks. This manuscript aims to summarize the available recommendations and the most relevant concepts about the use of ultrasonic scalpel during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.
Methods: Literature review of manuscripts with patients, animal models or in vitro studies where the ultrasonic scalpel was used and the plume produced was analyzed in a quantitative and/ or qualitative way.
Discussion: Activated devices with tissue produces a biphasic bioaerosol composed (size 68.3 - 994 nm) of tissue particles, blood, intact and no viable cells, and carcinogenic or irritant hydrocarbons (benzene, ethylbenzene, styrene, toluene, heptene, and methylpropene).
Conclusion: It is imperative to use an active smoke evacuator, to avoid ultrasonic scalpel use in COVID-19 positive patients and in upper airway surgery, as well as to follow the protection recommendations of the guidelines for management this type of patients.
 
KEYWORDS:
Ultrasonic scalpel; Surgical smoke; Aerosol; SARS-CoV-2; Virus transmission
 
INTRODUCTION:
Since its declaration as a Public Health Emergency of International Concern on 30 January 2020 by the World Health Organization,1 the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has represented a major challenge for healthcare systems worldwide. Several scientific reports about its epidemiology, clinical course, laboratory testing, treating support, or management guidelines, have been published.2–4 In this sense, surgical procedures increase demands on an already taxed system through the consumption of a large amount of personal protective equipment, use of inpatient beds post-operatively, and elevated risk of transmission of SARS-CoV-2 to other patients and staff.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommended cancellation of all elective and non-urgent procedures and subsequent guidelines were released by the American College of Surgeons and the American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, to provide only “time-sensitive” or “emergent” care.5,6,7(p19) These recommendations are based on the pragmatic aspects of surgery, being ultimately the responsibility of the surgeon to define what is an "elective" and "urgent" surgery.
Even in urgent or elective surgery, current guidelines recommend avoiding surgical techniques which might spread viral particles. Ultrasonic energy devices are commonly used in head and neck surgery and they represent an alternative to the scalpel, electrosurgery, or laser.8–11 Bloodborne transmission has not been documented in SARS-CoV-2. However, aerosolization of blood through the use of this type of instruments has been reported.12 They can easily produce a low-temperature aerosol that cannot effectively deactivate the cellular components of virus in patients. In previous studies, activated corynebacterium, papillomavirus and HIV DNA have been detected in surgical smoke, reporting the theoretical possibility of contagions related to exposure.13–15
One study found that after using ultrasonic equipment in laparoscopic surgery for 10 minutes, the particle concentration of the plume was significantly higher than in traditional open surgery.16 Despite the fact that this data is positive, given the type of surgery in which this type of scalpel is commonly used on the head and neck area, there is some controversy regarding it.17,18 The health effects of aerosols created by ultrasonic devices are not well documented, but considering the high viral titers in nasal mucosal, oral, pharyngeal, and pulmonary secretions, any operation that involves these surfaces is of high risk to the entire operating room personnel.12
Although there are several publications that contain guidelines for aerosols reduction during anesthesia, management of the airway, endoscopy, or tracheostomy,4,12,19,20 awareness of best practices using ultrasonic devices is imperative because infectious aerosols arising from airway procedures were a key etiologic factor in prior coronavirus outbreaks.21. The aim of this study is to summarize the available recommendations and the most relevant concepts about the technique during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.
 
METHODS:
This literature review is an initiative of the Young Otolaryngologist Group of the International Federation of Otolaryngologic Societies (YO-IFOS), which is composed of European, American, Asian and African otolaryngologists.
Although this is not a systematic review, we took a systematic approach for the search strategy in peer reviewed journals based on the recommendations of the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) Statement,22 which was carried out during the month of April 2020 (figure 1). The criteria for considering studies for this systematic review were based on population, intervention, comparison, outcome time and setting (PICOTS) framework.23
-          Participants: Patients, animal models or in vitro studies.
-          Intervention: use of ultrasonic scalpel as a cutting or sealing method for surgery (open and/or endoscopic).
-          Comparison: The presence of a control group with another type of scalpel was evaluated. Its absence did not constitute an exclusion criterion.
-          Outcome: Quantitative and/ or qualitative analysis of the ultrasonic scalpel aerosol.
-          Time: Studies were considered in which the aerosol was evaluated at the time of use of the device, as well as by subsequent cultures.
-          Setting: laboratory or operating room were considered.
Different indexed databases (PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Scielo and Web of Science) were used with the following keywords and their combinations: aerosol, smoke, ultrasonic scalpel, SARS-CoV-2, transmission, COVID, Coronavirus, virus, head neck, and complemented with free text terms. Eligibility criteria regarding the type of study, language or publication date were not applied with the objective of including all possible articles in this review. Furthermore, manual review of selected articles references in order to identify paper not found with the search strategy was carried out. From this review of the available literature, conducted by 2 authors (M.M.Y and C.C.E), a critical analysis of the published content and summary of the data of the selected research was performed.
 
DISCUSSION:
Virus transmission
The coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) is an infection caused by the SARS-CoV-2, a highly contagious and pathogenic viral. The entry mechanism of a coronavirus depends upon cellular proteases which include, human airway trypsin-like protease (HAT), cathepsins and transmembrane protease serine 2 (TMPRSS2) that split the spike protein and establish further penetration changes.24 Person-to-person transmission occurs primarily via direct contact or through droplets spread by coughing or sneezing from an infected individual as well as a contact transmission (oral, nasal, and eye mucous membranes).25 Although fecal-oral spread has also been confirmed.4 In a small study conducted on pregnant women in their third trimester who were confirmed to be infected with the coronavirus, there was no evidence that there is transmission from mother to child.26 SARS-coronavirus require binding between the receptor-binding domain of virus spikes and the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2).27
Aerosolized COVID-19 particles less than 5mm, produced during various procedures, may remain airborne for up to 3 hours and may survive on surfaces for much longer.28,29,30(p1) SARS-CoV has been measured in air samples within 1 m of an infected patient in 11 samples over 8 hours suggesting a high risk for airborne transmission. Specifically, the SARS-CoV-2 is more stable on plastic and stainless steel than on copper and cardboard, and viable virus can be detectable up to 72 hours after application to these surfaces.30(p1)
 
The ultrasonic scalpel
The ultrasonic scalpel (US) unites the ability to cut and coagulate in the same surgical device. The equipment consists of a generator, a hand-piece (housing the acoustic mount and ultrasonic transducer, which is composed of piezoelectric crystals sandwiched between metal cylinders), and specific inserts.31 The mechanism of action is based on transforming electrical energy into mechanical movement of 55.5 kHz frequency. These vibrations are transmitted along the handpiece to the instrument tip where they cause longitudinal displacements of 80 μm. This movement causes the blade to denature protein in the tissue to form a sticky coagulum of partly denatured proteins.32
The effects of the US on tissues differs greatly according to its mode of action. Three main mechanisms are in operation to varying degrees: cavitation, heat generation, and protein denaturation. The process of cavitation arises from the creation, expansion, and implosion of cavities in liquids.33,34 Mechanical oscillations of the instrument tip cause internal tissue pressures to rise and fall rapidly. Once the cellular pressure falls below the vapor pressure of cellular fluid, vapor-filled cavities form within the cells. It is the force generated by the expansion and contraction of these that result in tissue dissection. The pressure exerted on the tissue by the blade surface collapses blood vessels and allows the coagulum to form a hemostatic seal, controlling bleeding by coaptive coagulation at low temperatures, ranging from 50°C to 100°C. By contrast, electrosurgery and laser coagulate by burning (obliterative coagulation) at higher temperatures (150–400°C).
 
Aerosolization
Aerosol formation during procedures may be divided into patient induced or mechanically induced, as is the case with US. Aerosol particle size is inversely related to air speed and thus an aerosol generating procedure is any procedure capable of generating increased air velocities within the airway.35 These procedures are associated with the possibility of increasing the risk of SARS-CoV transmission among health-care workers.36
The interaction of ultrasonically activated devices with tissue produces a biphasic bioaerosol composed of tissue particles and a blood aerosol. This atomization that creates a mist has long been noted but few studies evaluated or explored it.37–40 It has been seen reported that the aerosols caused by this type of devices can be found more than 40 cm from their production area and for more than 1 minute in suspension, with various factors influencing their dispersion pattern and quantity. (e.g. type of scalpel tip or material being acted on). Fatty tissue generated 10 to 20 times more particles than lean tissue, probably due to its higher water content. Another study exhaustively evaluated the use of the ultrasound scalpel in muscle tissue, finding two large populations of particles (>500 nm and >500nm), with mean size of 68.3 and 994 nm and a concentration of 6.10x105 and 1.48x103/cm3, respectively.38 As for its action in bloody surgical fields, this type of devices produce a spray with a particle counts ranged of up to 500,000 particles of blood/ L.37
The US is said by the manufacturer to produce a vapor, not smoke, and the process has been described as low-temperature vaporization. This is concerning because cool aerosols in general have a higher chance of carrying infectious and viable material than do higher temperature aerosols.41 The composition of particles created by the scalpel is morphologically intact and no viable cells and carcinogenic or irritant hydrocarbons (benzene, ethylbenzene, styrene, toluene, heptene, and methylpropene) were identified in one or more samples.31,42
In determining health hazards from inhaled aerosol particles, the respirable material that penetrates is of primary importance. Classifying aerosols by their initial size is relevant in relation to their dispersal patterns, but it is also important to classify aerosols according to where they deposit in the respiratory tract because pathogenesis can be influenced by whether a virus deposits in the upper or lower respiratory tract.43 Dispersal and deposition depend on a variety of factors, and there is no exact cutoff for small and large droplets. Some authors use ≤5 µm in diameter as a cutoff for small droplets, while another possible cutoff between aerosol types is 20 µm, since aerosols ≤20 µm in diameter can desiccate to form droplet nuclei, and aerosols ≥20 µm do not deposit substantially in the lower respiratory tract.44
The absence of evidence suggesting harm from inhalation of ultrasonic surgical smoke does not mean it is therefore safe. The possibility of disease transmission through surgical smokes exists, even though currently documented cases of pathogen transmission are rare.41 The few existing data on the aerosolization of US (table 1), together with studies on SARS-CoV-2 transmission and viability over time, suggest a considerably increased risk of disease transmission if this type of device is used in infected patients.37
 
IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE:
Because of the fact that almost 80% of SARS-CoV-2−positive patients are asymptomatic,45 some clinical guidelines advocate that all patients should be assumed to be infective.46 The availability of reliable testing for SARS-CoV-2 will be an important step forward in the future to distinguish between infected and noninfected patients. Until then, aerosol generating procedures require special attention in every patient with unclear infection status. Even then, it is noteworthy that the sensitivity of current available test is 72%,47 and they are highly dependent on the technique followed to recollect the sample.48
Reducing aerosol formation to a minimum should be a priority, avoiding the use of the US or excessive water cooling for handpieces, saws, high speed drills, and piezoelectric devices in all cases where it is possible and especially when working on the upper airway.12,49 The risks posed by the aerosol generated from the US compared to that of laser and electrocautery is not known, and may be greater due to the larger size of particles generated and because it is a cooler aerosol and therefore may contain more biologically viable particles (table 1).
Likewise, the number of staff members in the operating room should be limited to a minimum. The operating room should be equipped with adequate ventilation and a negative pressure system. Besides eye protection and gloves, facial mask and respirators of a high protection level (FFP3 / N99 / equivalent) and as well as waterproof gowns should be used.12,49 Finally, the minimal existing reports suggest that the local exhaust ventilation smoke-evacuation system dramatically reduced particle concentration exposure.37,38,41 Therefore, an exquisite vacuum from the field while using this type of device is recommended.
 
CONCLUSION:
The first reported physician fatality related to COVID-19 in Wuhan, China, was an otolaryngology physician on January 25, 2020.50 Healthcare personnel that manage patients with diseases of the aerodigestive tract (otolaryngologists, maxillofacials, anaesthetist, dentists, head and neck surgeons, gastroenterologists, pneumonologists, respiratory therapists, speech therapists, and infectious disease physicians or ophthalmologists) are the healthcare workers most susceptible to infection (risk ratio of 2.13).51
There is a particular need for protective measures in these professional groups, both at the current time of the pandemic and the possible de-escalation of containment measures. Currently, there is no specific information regarding SARS-CoV-2, aerosolization with ultrasonic devices, and its infective capacity. Aerosol-generating medical procedures are increasingly being recognized as important sources for nosocomial transmission of emerging viruses.35,36 Therefore, all procedures that have the potential to aerosolize aerodigestive secretions, such as nasolaryngoscopy, endotracheal intubation, non-invasive ventilation, tracheostomy, upper airway surgery, transnasal endoscopic surgery and high-speed handpieces or ultrasonic instruments, increase the risk of infection and should be avoided or employed only when mandatory. There is no information regarding any potential risk for electrocautery smoke or transoral laser resection generated smoke but it would be reasonable to take appropriate precautions in these settings too.
It is important to recognize the range of aerosol generating procedures and the circumstances under which they might be performed on infected patients. In order to associate certain aerosol-generating medical procedures with nosocomial virus transmission, researchers need to test whether certain procedures generate aerosols with infectious virus, either through hospital sampling or laboratory procedures.35 The ambiguity with which procedures and viruses require additional protective measures during these procedures may lead to breaches in protocol. Likewise, proper patient triage and diagnosis are the first steps to ensuring that precautions are undertaken when performing it.
Overall, more research and communication about the risks of certain viruses and aerosol-generating medical procedures, as well as additional research to determine when smoke evacuation systems need to be used, are necessary to resolve the uncertainty surrounding their role in nosocomial virus transmission.
 
REFERENCES:
1.             Coronavirus [Internet]. [cited Apr 6, 2020]. Available in: https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019
2.             Li H, Liu S-M, Yu X-H, Tang S-L, Tang C-K. Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): current status and future perspective. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2020;105951.
3.             Perrella A, Carannante N, Berretta M, Rinaldi M, Maturo N, Rinaldi L. Novel Coronavirus 2019 (Sars-CoV2): a global emergency that needs new approaches? Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 2020;24(4):2162-4.
4.             Kowalski LP, Sanabria A, Ridge JA, Ng WT, de Bree R, Rinaldo A, et al. COVID-19 pandemic: Effects and evidence-based recommendations for otolaryngology and head and neck surgery practice. Head Neck. 2020; doi: 10.1002/hed.26164. [Epub ahead of print]
5.             Non-Emergent, Elective Medical Services, and Treatment Recommendations. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) [Internet]. [cited Apr 6, 2020]. Available in: https://www.cms.gov/files/document/cms-non-emergent-elective-medical-recommendations.pdf
6.             Topf MC, Shenson JA, Holsinger FC, Wald SH, Cianfichi LJ, Rosenthal EL, et al. A Framework for Prioritizing Head and Neck Surgery during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Head Neck. 2020; doi: 10.1002/hed.26184. [Epub ahead of print]
7.             COVID-19 Guidelines for Triage of Otolaryngology Patients [Internet]. American College of Surgeons (ACS). [cited Apr 18, 2020]. Available in: https://www.facs.org/covid-19/clinical-guidance/elective-case/otolaryngology
8.             Salami A, Dellepiane M, Bavazzano M, Crippa B, Mora F, Mora R. New trends in head and neck surgery: a prospective evaluation of the Harmonic Scalpel. Med Sci Monit. 2008;14(5):PI1-5.
9.             Albert S, Guedon C, Halimi C, Cristofari JP, Barry B. The use of harmonic scalpel for free flap dissection in head and neck reconstructive surgery. Plast Surg Int. 2012;2012:302921.
10.          Fernández-Fernández MM, Montes-Jovellar L, Parente Arias PL, Ortega del Alamo P. TransOral endoscopic UltraSonic Surgery (TOUSS): a preliminary report of a novel robotless alternative to TORS. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2015;272(12):3785-91.
11.          Chiesa-Estomba CM, Larruscain-Sarasola E, González-García JA, Sistiaga-Suarez JA, Altuna-Mariezcurrena X. Cold knife dissection and bipolar diathermy Vs harmonic scalpel in parotid gland surgery for benign tumours. Acta Otorrinolaringol Esp. 2020;71(2):93-8.
12.          Givi B, Schiff BA, Chinn SB, Clayburgh D, Iyer NG, Jalisi S, et al. Safety Recommendations for Evaluation and Surgery of the Head and Neck During the COVID-19 Pandemic. JAMA Otolaryngol Neck Surg. 2020; doi: 10.1001/jamaoto.2020.0780. [Epub ahead of print]
13.          Alp E, Bijl D, Bleichrodt RP, Hansson B, Voss A. Surgical smoke and infection control. J Hosp Infect. 2006;62(1):1-5.
14.          DesCoteaux JG, Picard P, Poulin EC, Baril M. Preliminary study of electrocautery smoke particles produced in vitro and during laparoscopic procedures. Surg Endosc. 1996;10(2):152–158
15.          Baggish MS, Poiesz BJ, Joret D, Williamson P, Refai A. Presence of human immunodeficiency virus DNA in laser smoke. Lasers Surg Med. 1991;11(3):197–203.
16.          Zheng MH, Boni L, Fingerhut A. Minimally Invasive Surgery and the Novel Coronavirus Outbreak: Lessons Learned in China and Italy. Ann Surg. 2020; doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000003924. [Epub ahead of print]
17.          Vigneswaran Y, Prachand VN, Posner MC, Matthews JB, Hussain M. What Is the Appropriate Use of Laparoscopy over Open Procedures in the Current COVID-19 Climate? J Gastrointest Surg. 2020; doi: 10.1007/s11605-020-04592-9. [Epub ahead of print]
18.          Morris SN, Fader AN, Milad MP, Dionisi HJ. Understanding the «Scope» of the Problem: Why Laparoscopy is Considered Safe During the COVID-19 Pandemic. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2020; S1553-4650(20)30171-0
19.          Dexter F, Parra MC, Brown JR, Loftus RW. Perioperative COVID-19 Defense: An Evidence-Based Approach for Optimization of Infection Control and Operating Room Management. Anesth Analg. 2020; doi: 10.1213/ANE.0000000000004829. [Epub ahead of print]
20.          Balakrishnan K, Schechtman S, Hogikyan ND, Teoh AYB, McGrath B, Brenner MJ. COVID-19 Pandemic: What Every Otolaryngologist-Head and Neck Surgeon Needs to Know for Safe Airway Management. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2020; doi: 10.1177/0194599820919751. [Epub ahead of print].
21.          Hui DS. Severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS): lessons learnt in Hong Kong. J Thorac Dis. 2013;5(Suppl 2):S122-6.
22.          Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, Group TP. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. PLOS Med. 21 de julio de 2009;6(7):e1000097.
23.          Matchar DB. Chapter 1: Introduction to the Methods Guide for Medical Test Reviews. J Gen Intern Med. 2012;27 Suppl 1(Suppl 1):S4–S10.
24.          Glowacka I, Bertram S, Müller MA, Allen P, Soilleux E, Pfefferle S, et al. Evidence that TMPRSS2 Activates the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus Spike Protein for Membrane Fusion and Reduces Viral Control by the Humoral Immune Response▿. J Virol. mayo de 2011;85(9):4122-34.
25.          Lu C-W, Liu X-F, Jia Z-F. 2019-nCoV transmission through the ocular surface must not be ignored. Lancet. 2020;395(10224):e39.
26.          Rothan HA, Byrareddy SN. The epidemiology and pathogenesis of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) outbreak. J Autoimmun. 2020;109:102433.
27.          Wan Y, Shang J, Graham R, Baric RS, Li F. Receptor Recognition by the Novel Coronavirus from Wuhan: an Analysis Based on Decade-Long Structural Studies of SARS Coronavirus. J Virol. 2020; 94(7)e00127-20
28.          Construction and Operation Manual of Fangcang Shelter Hospitals for COVID-19 Summary [Internet]. [cited Apr 19, 2020]. Available in: https://www.alibabacloud.com/zh/universal-service/pdf_reader?spm=a3c0i.14138300.6528260250.dreadnow.6df3647fsLzCoN&cdnorigin=pdf-intl&pdf=Read%20Online%E2%80%94Construction%20and%20Operation%20Manual%20of%20Fangcang%20Shelter%20Hospitals%20for%20COVID-19%20Summary.pdf
29.          Wax RS, Christian MD. Practical recommendations for critical care and anesthesiology teams caring for novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) patients. Can J Anaesth. 2020; doi: 10.1007/s12630-020-01591-x. [Epub ahead of print]
30.          van Doremalen N, Bushmaker T, Morris DH, Holbrook MG, Gamble A, Williamson BN, et al. Aerosol and Surface Stability of SARS-CoV-2 as Compared with SARS-CoV-1. N Engl J Med. 2020;382(16):1564-7.
31.          Nduka CC, Poland N, Kennedy M, Dye J, Darzi A. Does the ultrasonically activated scalpel release viable airborne cancer cells? Surg Endosc. 1998;12(8):1031-4.
32.          Amaral JF. Ultrasonic dissection. Endosc Surg Allied Technol. 1994;2(3-4):181-5.
33.          Boddy SA, Ramsay JW, Carter SS, Webster PJ, Levison DA, Whitfield HN. Tissue effects of an ultrasonic scalpel for clinical surgical use. Urol Res. 1987;15(1):49-52.
34.          Tulandi T, Chan KL, Arseneau J. Histopathological and adhesion formation after incision using ultrasonic vibrating scalpel and regular scalpel in the rat. Fertil Steril. 1994;61(3):548-50.
35.          Judson SD, Munster VJ. Nosocomial Transmission of Emerging Viruses via Aerosol-Generating Medical Procedures. Viruses. 2019;11(10).
36.          Tran K, Cimon K, Severn M, Pessoa-Silva CL, Conly J. Aerosol Generating Procedures and Risk of Transmission of Acute Respiratory Infections to Healthcare Workers: A Systematic Review. PLoS One. 2012;7(4):e35797
37.          Ott DE, Moss E, Martinez K. Aerosol exposure from an ultrasonically activated (Harmonic) device. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc. 1998;5(1):29-32.
38.          Weld KJ, Dryer S, Ames CD, Cho K, Hogan C, Lee M, et al. Analysis of surgical smoke produced by various energy-based instruments and effect on laparoscopic visibility. J Endourol. 2007;21(3):347-51.
39.          Brüske-Hohlfeld I, Preissler G, Jauch K-W, Pitz M, Nowak D, Peters A, et al. Surgical smoke and ultrafine particles. J Occup Med Toxicol Lond Engl. 2008;3:31.
40.                          In SM, Park D-Y, Sohn IK, Kim C-H, Lim HL, Hong S-A, et al. Experimental study of the potential hazards of surgical smoke from powered instruments. Br J Surg. 2015;102(12):1581-6.
41.          Barrett WL, Garber SM. Surgical smoke: a review of the literature. Is this just a lot of hot air? Surg Endosc. 2003;17(6):979-87.
42.          Fitzgerald JEF, Malik M, Ahmed I. A single-blind controlled study of electrocautery and ultrasonic scalpel smoke plumes in laparoscopic surgery. Surg Endosc. 2012;26(2):337-42.
43.          Thomas RJ. Particle size and pathogenicity in the respiratory tract. Virulence. 2013;4(8):847-58.
44.          Tellier R. Review of aerosol transmission of influenza A virus. Emerg Infect Dis. 2006;12(11):1657-62.
45.          Day M. Covid-19: four fifths of cases are asymptomatic, China figures indicate. BMJ. 2020;369:m1375
46.          Rothe C, Schunk M, Sothmann P, Bretzel G, Froeschl G, Wallrauch C, et al. Transmission of 2019-nCoV Infection from an Asymptomatic Contact in Germany. N Engl J Med. 2020;382(10):970-1.
47.          Wang W, Xu Y, Gao R, Lu R, Han K, Wu G, et al. Detection of SARS-CoV-2 in Different Types of Clinical Specimens. JAMA. 2020; doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.3786. [Epub ahead of print]
48.          Pan Y, Long L, Zhang D, Yan T, Cui S, Yang P, et al. Potential false-negative nucleic acid testing results for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 from thermal inactivation of samples with low viral loads. Clin Chem. 2020; pii: hvaa091. doi: 10.1093/clinchem/hvaa091. [Epub ahead of print]
49.          Zimmermann M, Nkenke E. Approaches to the management of patients in oral and maxillofacial surgery during COVID-19 pandemic. J CranioMaxillofac Surg. 2020;S1010-5182(20)30083-4
50.          Chan JYK, Wong EWY, Lam W. Practical Aspects of Otolaryngologic Clinical Services During the 2019 Novel Coronavirus Epidemic: An Experience in Hong Kong. JAMA Otolaryngol Neck Surg. 2 2020; doi: 10.1001/jamaoto.2020.0488. [Epub ahead of print]
51.          Meng L, Hua F, Bian Z. Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): Emerging and Future Challenges for Dental and Oral Medicine: J Dent Res. 2020; doi: 10.1177/0022034520914246. [Epub ahead of print]
TABLES:
Table 1. Main characteristics of the aerosol produced by ultrasonic scalpel.