Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 328

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 22 of the 22 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Endonasal instrumentation and aerosolization risk in the era of COVID‐19: simulation, literature review, and proposed mitigation strategies

Open access
Workman, Alan D., Welling, D. Bradley, Carter, Bob S., Curry, William T., Holbrook, Eric H., Gray, Stacey T., Scangas, George A., Bleier, Benjamin S.·2020·International Forum of Allergy & Rhinology

Abstract

Background: International experience with coronavirus 2019 (COVID‐19) suggests it poses a significant risk of infectious transmission to skull base surgeons, due to high nasal viral titers and the unknown potential for aerosol generation during endonasal instrumentation. The purpose of this study was to simulate aerosolization events over a range of endoscopic procedures to obtain an evidence‐based aerosol risk assessment. Methods: Aerosolization was simulated in a cadaver using fluorescein solution (0.2 mg per 10 mL) and quantified using a blue‐light filter and digital image processing. Outpatient sneezing during endoscopy was simulated using an intranasal atomizer in the presence or absence of intact and modified surgical mask barriers. Surgical aerosolization was simulated during nonpowered instrumentation, suction microdebrider, and high‐speed drilling after nasal fluorescein application. Results: Among the outpatient conditions, a simulated sneeze event generated maximal aerosol distribution at 30 cm, extending to 66 cm. Both an intact surgical mask and a modified VENT mask (which enables endoscopy) eliminated all detectable aerosol spread. Among the surgical conditions, cold instrumentation and microdebrider use did not generate detectable aerosols. Conversely, use of a high‐speed drill produced significant aerosol contamination in all conditions tested. Conclusion: We confirm that aerosolization presents a risk to the endonasal skull base surgeon. In the outpatient setting, use of a barrier significantly reduces aerosol spread. Cold surgical instrumentation and microdebrider use pose significantly less aerosolization risk than a high‐speed drill. Procedures requiring drill use should carry a special designation as an “aerosol‐generating surgery” to convey this unique risk, and this supports the need for protective personal protective equipment.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/alr.22577

Cites

22 of 22 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 22 references

Cited by

See all 328

Metadata

Authors
Workman, A. D., Welling, D. B., Carter, B. S., Curry, W. T., Holbrook, E. H., Gray, S. T., Scangas, G. A., & Bleier, B. S.
Venue
International Forum of Allergy & Rhinology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2020-05-22
Volume
10
Issue
7
Pages
798-805
ISSN
  • 2042-6976 (ISSN-L)
  • 2042-6984
OpenAlex
W3014842906
Cited by
328
References
22
FWCI
39.16
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Endonasal instrumentation and aerosolization risk in the era of COVID‐19: simulation, literature review, and proposed mitigation strategies. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/alr.22577
The paper
Workman, A. D., Welling, D. B., Carter, B. S., Curry, W. T., Holbrook, E. H., Gray, S. T., Scangas, G. A., & Bleier, B. S. (2020). Endonasal instrumentation and aerosolization risk in the era of COVID‐19: simulation, literature review, and proposed mitigation strategies. International Forum of Allergy & Rhinology. https://doi.org/10.1002/alr.22577

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.