Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Wiley - PMC COVID-19 Collection logoLink to Wiley - PMC COVID-19 Collection
. 2021 Apr 1;91(7-8):1358–1363. doi: 10.1111/ans.16761

Consistency of global recommendations regarding open versus laparoscopic surgery during the COVID‐19 pandemic: a systematic review

Susan Jacob 1, Ahmer Hameed 1,2,3, Vincent Lam 1,2,4, Tony CY Pang 1,2,3,✉
PMCID: PMC8250243  PMID: 33792122

Abstract

Background

Throughout the COVID‐19 pandemic, there has been worldwide debate regarding whether open surgery should be performed in preference to laparoscopic surgery due to the theoretical higher risk of viral aerosolization by the release of pneumoperitoneum. We aimed to assess the consistency of national and international surgical society recommendations regarding the choice of surgical approach; assess the quality of evidence of viral emission in surgical aerosol; and assess the quality of evidence comparing aerosol generation by different surgical energy devices.

Methods

A systematic review of PubMed, Medline, Embase and Cochrane databases was performed. Three search strategies were employed. Twenty‐eight studies were included in the final analysis and quality appraised. Confidence in review findings was assessed using the GRADE‐CERQual (Confidence in Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research) tool.

Results

Worldwide recommendations regarding open versus laparoscopic surgery are consistent, with a majority recommending that surgical approach is decided on a case‐by‐case, risk minimization approach. There is limited, low‐quality evidence that viral particles can be emitted in surgical aerosol. There is a paucity of literature on the quantity of aerosol produced by different surgical energy devices, and no evidence to support the use of certain surgical instruments to minimize aerosol production.

Conclusions

There is considerable consistency among worldwide recommendations regarding the choice of surgical approach, although the evidence base is lacking. To inform clinical recommendations, further research examining viral emission, transmission, infectivity and amount of surgical aerosol produced is required.

Keywords: coronavirus, COVID‐19, laparoscopy, SARS‐CoV‐2, surgery

The aims of this qualitative systematic review were to assess the consistency of global recommendations regarding the choice of open versus laparoscopic surgery during the COVID‐19 pandemic; assess the quality of evidence of viral emission in aerosols generated during surgery; and assess the quality of evidence comparing aerosol generation by different surgical energy devices. Worldwide recommendations regarding the choice of open versus laparoscopic surgery are consistent, with a majority recommending that surgical approach is decided on case‐by‐case, risk minimization approach. There is limited, low‐quality evidence that viral particles can be emitted in surgical aerosol. There is a paucity of literature on the quantity of aerosol produced by different surgical energy devices, and no evidence to support the use of certain surgical instruments to minimize aerosol production.

graphic file with name ANS-91-1358-g001.jpg

Introduction

COVID‐19 is transmitted via aerosol. Aerosol is generated during laparoscopy by the creation and release of pneumoperitoneum. Aerosolization also occurs during open surgery, although the extent is unclear especially in relation to various electrosurgical and ultrasonic instruments.

COVID‐19 RNA has been detected in respiratory specimens, saliva, blood and stool. 1 In addition, the angiotensin‐converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) receptor, a binding site for SARS‐CoV‐2, is highly expressed in intestinal epithelial cells. 2 While the infectivity of virus in extrapulmonary specimens is unknown, there is a theoretical risk of coronavirus transmission during surgery, via the aerosolization of gastrointestinal contents, blood and other bodily fluids. 3

However, there is no evidence of coronavirus transmission via aerosol generated during laparoscopic or open surgery. There has been worldwide debate regarding whether open surgery should be performed in preference to laparoscopic surgery due to the theoretical higher risk of viral aerosolization by the release of pneumoperitoneum.

The aims of this qualitative systematic review were to:

  1. Assess the consistency of global recommendations regarding the choice of open versus laparoscopic surgery during the COVID‐19 pandemic;

  2. Assess the quality of evidence of viral emission in surgical aerosol; and

  3. Assess the quality of evidence comparing aerosol generation by different surgical energy devices.

Methods

This study was registered with the PROSPERO 4 international prospective register of systematic reviews (registration number: CRD42020186434). Literature searches and article selection was conducted by a single researcher (SJ). Data abstraction, analysis, quality appraisal and confidence in review findings were independently assessed by two researchers (SJ and AH). Findings were collated and disagreements resolved by consulting the senior authors. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta Analyses 5 (PRISMA) guidelines were followed and PRISMA checklist was completed (Fig. S1). Three search strategies were employed.

Search strategy and eligibility

Choice of open versus laparoscopic surgery during the COVID‐19 pandemic

First, a search of PubMed, Medline, Embase and Cochrane databases was undertaken on 17 November 2020. Search terms were (‘Coronavirus’ OR ‘Covid‐19’ OR ‘SARS‐CoV‐2’) AND ((‘laparoscopy’ OR ‘minimally invasive surgery’) OR (‘surgery’ AND ‘recommendation’ OR ‘guideline’)). Relevant references were searched manually. Second, a targeted web search of grey literature was performed by searching for major surgical society homepages from all major geographical regions of the world, namely North America, Europe, Asia‐Pacific, Latin America, Africa and the Middle East. This search was conducted on 17 November 2020, and identified 10 national and international surgical society homepages which were then searched for guidelines or statements regarding the choice of surgical approach during the COVID‐19 pandemic.

Articles were included if they were published by a national or international general surgical society and made a recommendation regarding the choice of surgical approach during the coronavirus pandemic. There was no limitation on date or language of publication. If surgical societies had published multiple statements, the most recent was included. Publications unrelated to general surgery, not commenting on choice of surgical approach or citing another surgical society's recommendation were excluded.

Evidence of viral emission in surgically generated aerosol

PubMed, Medline, Embase and Cochrane databases were searched on 18 November 2020. Search terms were ‘virus’ AND (‘surgical smoke’ OR ‘surgical plume’ OR ‘surgical aerosol’ OR ‘surgical vapour’). Studies were included if they examined the presence of any virus in aerosol generated during any human surgery. All study designs were included with no limitation on language or date of publication. Animal studies, laboratory studies and review articles were excluded.

Amount of aerosol generation by type of surgical instrument

PubMed, Medline, Embase and Cochrane databases were searched on 18 November 2020. Search terms were ‘instrument’ AND (‘surgical smoke’ OR ‘surgical vapour’ OR ‘surgical plume’ or ‘surgical aerosol’). Published peer‐reviewed articles comparing the amount of surgical smoke produced by two or more surgical instruments were included. All studies (including laboratory and animal experiments) comparing aerosol production were included. There was no limitation on date of publication or language. Review and opinion articles were ineligible.

Data collection and analysis

For surgical society guidelines, date of publication, statement regarding the choice of surgical approach and evidence base were noted. Recommendations for safe surgery were collated and consistency of recommendations was assessed.

For studies examining viral emission in surgical aerosol, date of publication, study design, population, virus and surgery performed were noted. The total number of studies demonstrating viral emission in surgical smoke and percentage of the study population where virus was detected in surgical aerosol was examined.

For studies comparing aerosol generation by surgical instruments, experiment design, results and ranking of instruments producing the most aerosol were reviewed narratively to determine trends.

Quality of guidelines and experimental studies was assessed using the AGREE‐II (Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation) 6 tool and Johanna Briggs Institute Checklist for non‐randomized experimental studies, 7 respectively. Where applicable, confidence in review findings was assessed using the GRADE‐CERQual 8 (Confidence in Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research) tool.

Results

Consistency of global recommendations regarding the choice of open versus laparoscopic surgery

One thousand two hundred and eighteen publications were screened, and inclusion and exclusion criteria applied (Fig. S2). Fourteen guidelines were included in the final qualitative analysis. Table S1 summarizes included guidelines' statement regarding the choice of surgical approach. This includes the evidence base cited by each guideline. 30 , 44 , 47 Table S2 summarizes surgical society recommendations for safe surgery. Quality assessment of guidelines is detailed in Table S3.

There is considerable consistency among worldwide recommendations regarding the choice of open versus laparoscopic surgery. Twelve of 14 guidelines 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 recommend that surgical approach is decided on a case‐by‐case basis. Two guidelines recommend avoiding laparoscopy where coronavirus infection is suspected or confirmed. 21 , 22

Evidence of viral emission in aerosol generated during surgery

Nine hundred and twelve studies were screened and inclusion and exclusion criteria applied (Fig. S3). Ten articles were included in final qualitative synthesis. 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 Table S4 summarizes included studies' findings. Quality assessment of included studies is summarized in Table S5.

Our review finds limited evidence on viral particles that are emitted in surgical aerosol. Every study detected the presence of viral DNA rather than intact viral particles, without assessment of their infectivity. In nine studies, viral DNA was detected in surgical aerosol in a percentage of cases. The percentage varied significantly, with viral DNA detected in 16–90% of cases. 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 One study found no viral DNA emission in surgical aerosol. 27

Viral emission during open surgery was investigated in nine studies. 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 31 , 32 Eight studies demonstrated human papillomavirus (HPV) DNA in surgical aerosol, or on swabs of equipment used to collect aerosol. 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 28 , 29 , 31 , 32 Viral emission during laparoscopy was investigated in one study. Hepatitis B DNA was detected in surgical aerosol of 10 out of 11 cases of laparoscopic surgery in patients who were hepatitis B surface antigen positive. 30

Three studies further examined whether emitted viral DNA was transmitted to the surgeon. A single study by Zhou et al. demonstrated HPV DNA transmission to surgeons without subsequent HPV infection. 32 In contrast, Ferenczy et al. and Weyandt et al. found no evidence of HPV DNA transmission to surgeons, despite HPV detection in surgical aerosol. 24 , 29

Aerosol generation by type of surgical instrument

Seven hundred and twenty‐two studies were screened and inclusion and exclusion criteria applied (Fig. S4). Four articles were reviewed narratively and summarized in Table S6. Quality assessment is detailed in Table S7.

Our review found no evidence to support the use of one surgical instrument over another to decrease aerosol production. No qualitative synthesis was possible due to heterogeneity of studies. There was insufficient data to demonstrate trends in the amount of aerosol produced by different surgical instruments.

Fitzgerald et al. conducted a single‐blind controlled study where patients underwent laparoscopic surgery solely using ultrasonic scalpels or diathermy. Intraoperative gas samples were aspirated from the abdomen and analysed for the concentration of six pre‐specified hydrocarbons. There was a non‐significant trend towards lower concentrations of all hydrocarbons with ultrasonic dissection compared to diathermy. 33

Weld et al. compared total particle number concentration after electrosurgical Bipolar Macroforceps (Aesculap, Center Valley, PA, USA), ultrasonic Harmonic Scalpel (Ethicon Endo‐Surgery, Cincinnati, OH, USA), electrosurgical Floating Ball (Tissue Link Medical Inc., Dover, NH, USA) and electrosurgical Monopolar shears (Ethicon Endo‐Surgery) were applied to porcine muscle in vitro. Each instrument was used at a single setting and activated for a specified time. The Monopolar shears produced the most concentrated aerosol, followed by the Floating Ball (Medtronic, Minneapolis, MN), Harmonic Scalpel and Bipolar Macroforceps. 34

Two studies measured the degree to which visibility was obstructed by aerosol produced by different surgical instruments. Choi et al. randomized 20 patients undergoing laparoscopic hysterectomy by a single operator to the intraoperative use of an ultrasonic scalpel or monopolar cautery. The degree to which aerosol affected visibility was assessed using a Likert scale by two observers. The ultrasonic scalpel created less aerosol and had better laparoscopic visibility than monopolar cautery. 35

Kim et al. utilized image software to determine the percentage of pixels in a videoframe containing aerosol when the ultrasonic Covidien Sonicision (Covidien, Mansfield, MA, USA), ultrasonic Harmonic ACE (Ethicon Endo‐Surgery) and ultrasonic Olympus SonoSurg (Olympus, Center Valley, PA, USA) were applied to bovine liver at a specified setting. The most significant differences were observed in the coagulation setting, where the SonoSurg generated negligible aerosol, Sonicision (Medtronic, Minneapolis, MN) generated limited obstruction and Harmonic ACE generated aerosol obstructing one‐fourth of the laparoscopic field. 36

Discussion

Open versus laparoscopic surgery

Current surgical society guidelines are consistent, with a majority recommending that surgical approach is decided on a case‐by‐case, risk minimization basis. We have moderate confidence in our review finding (Table S8), noting the inherent methodological limitations when qualitatively assessing clinical practice guidelines. Further limitations are the small number of guidelines, lacking an evidence base. Five guidelines from surgical society websites did not undergo peer review, limiting reliability. There is a risk of bias from the targeted web search for surgical society homepages, as there may be surgical society websites that were not screened. Bias may also arise from the lack of geographical representation among included guidelines.

At the outset of the coronavirus pandemic, surgical societies rapidly produced guidelines discouraging laparoscopy. Guidelines have been updated and become progressively nuanced; presently, recommending surgical approach is decided on a case‐by‐case basis with risk minimization strategies employed. Guidelines are limited to expert opinion or consensus statements erring on the side of caution. Laparoscopy has been reintroduced and there is no evidence of coronavirus transmission via aerosol generated in open or laparoscopic surgery. In addition, there was no evidence of disease transmission via surgical aerosol in other coronavirus outbreaks such as severe acute respiratory syndrome or Middle East respiratory syndrome. 3

When operating on a patient with suspected COVID‐19, it is unclear whether aerosolization of blood, faeces and other bodily fluids has the same infective potential as respiratory tract aerosols. In a study of the biodistribution of SARS‐CoV‐2 in patients with COVID‐19, lower respiratory tract samples were most frequently positive for the virus; however, live SARS‐CoV‐2 was detected in faecal specimens, indicating faecal transmission was possible. 1

While risk mitigation strategies published by surgical societies are precautionary, they are not evidence based. They do not consider the availability of resources such as negative‐pressure rooms in developing countries, limiting utility. In response, surgeons have suggested low cost alternatives such as exhaust fans in theatres to generate negative pressure to mitigate risk. 37

Our review finding is concordant with other reviews on choice of surgical approach during the coronavirus pandemic. Reviews by Mowbray et al. and Tivey et al. concluded there was no evidence that laparoscopy posed a greater infection risk than open surgery, however precautionary measures should be implemented. 38 , 39

Factors to consider when deciding surgical approach include local epidemiology of COVID‐19, surgical expertise, equipment availability and advantages and disadvantages of each approach to patients and staff. Advantages of laparoscopy include clear intraoperative tissue display, decreased morbidity and decreased length of stay. 40 A statistical model published by Elliot et al. found that decreased length of stay with laparoscopy was associated with a reduced risk of nosocomial perioperative SARS‐CoV‐2 infection and mortality. 41 Another consideration is that physical barriers in laparoscopy may contain and reduce exposure to aerosol generated by surgical power instruments. 3 Disadvantages of laparoscopy include longer duration of surgery and anaesthesia and respiratory issues such as decreased lung volume, increased airway pressure and carbon dioxide retention. 42

While outside this reviews' scope, there has been a paradigm shift towards non‐operative management. This is partially because patients with perioperative SARS‐CoV‐2 infection have poor surgical outcomes. An international multicentre cohort study noted that post‐operative pulmonary complications occurred in half of the patients with a perioperative SARS‐CoV‐2 infection and that there was a 23.8% all‐cause 30‐day mortality rate. 43

Emission of viral particles in surgical aerosol

There is evidence that viral components can be emitted in surgical aerosol, however, evidence is limited and low‐quality. We have very low confidence as this finding is applicable to the phenomenon of interest (Table S8). The main limitation is that studies examined the emission of HPV and hepatitis B virus DNA in surgical aerosol. Findings are not generalizable to patients with COVID‐19, as their transmission mechanisms, namely skin‐to‐skin contact and via body fluids, differ from the transmission mechanism of SARS‐CoV‐2 which is spread by aerosol. Additional limitations were small sample sizes and lack of randomization or control groups. Outcomes were only measured once, and sensitivity of equipment to detect viral DNA was not described. There was considerable heterogeneity in patient populations, procedures and methods for measuring viral particles in aerosol.

Importantly, there is no evidence for infectivity of such viral emissions, even in studies which examined the transmission of viral DNA to operators. 24 , 29 , 32 There are no studies with long‐term follow‐up assessing if exposure to virus‐containing surgical aerosol causes disease. This limits the validity of applying these findings to recommend a change to current surgical practice by uniformly avoiding laparoscopy. It is postulated that high temperatures of surgical power instruments inactivate the virus. 44

Aerosol generation by type of surgical instrument

The major limitation of this review was the paucity of studies comparing aerosol production by different surgical instruments. Studies were low quality. Sample sizes were small, and outcomes were not measured repeatedly or reliably.

Across the literature, the terms surgical smoke, plume, vapour and aerosol are used interchangeably to describe gaseous by‐products of energy‐based surgical instruments. 34 , 45 Surgical aerosol is made up of 95% water, and 5% cellular debris including gaseous hydrocarbons, blood and tissue particles as well as viruses and bacteria. 46

The mechanism of aerosol generation by different instruments determines the resulting particle size distribution. Electrosurgical devices and lasers produce aerosol by heating tissue past its boiling point causing the rupture of cell membranes and release of a water‐based vapour. 47 Small spherical particles are produced by uniform drying of liquid droplets in gas. 34 Ultrasonic scalpels produce a low temperature vapour by compressing tissue on a rapidly oscillating plate 33 and larger particles result from the explosion and fragmentation of tissue. 34 Electrocautery generates particles with the smallest average aerodynamic size, while ultrasonic scalpels produce particles with the largest average size. 33 , 34

The size distribution of particles determines the distances particles travel, the time particles persists in air and effectiveness of personal protective equipment. 48 Additional factors influencing the amount of aerosol produced by surgical instruments include instrument power and activity setting (cutting or coagulating), length of time the instrument is activated and tissue type.

Directions for future research

An evidence base is required for future recommendations regarding the choice of surgical approach during the COVID‐19 pandemic. A prospective observational cohort study is required to determine if SARS‐CoV‐2 can be emitted in surgical aerosol. Operating room air samples from patients with COVID‐19 undergoing any surgery could be analysed for SARS‐CoV‐2. Quantitative polymerase chain reaction analysis can compare the amount, if any, of SARS‐CoV‐2 emitted during open or laparoscopic surgery. Patient outcomes can also be compared. Randomization is not feasible as there are many other patient‐ and disease‐related factors that influence surgical approach. Infectivity of emitted viral particles could be determined by further experiments on human cell lines or animals. Aerosol generation by different surgical instruments can be reliably measured and compared by laser particle sensors, transmission electron microscopy or gas chromatography. These experiments are best performed in a laboratory.

Conclusions

Global recommendations regarding the choice of open versus laparoscopic surgery are consistent, with a majority of surgical society guidelines recommending surgical approach is decided on a case‐by‐case basis. These recommendations are not evidence based. While there is limited evidence demonstrating viral emission in surgical aerosol, there is no evidence to support or refute the infectivity of these viral components. There is a paucity of literature quantifying and comparing aerosol production by different surgical instruments. This review highlights significant knowledge gaps and further studies are required to inform clinical recommendations.

Author Contributions

Susan Jacob: Data curation; investigation; methodology; writing‐original draft. Ahmer Hameed: Data curation; writing‐review & editing. Vincent Lam: Conceptualization; writing‐review & editing. Tony Pang: Conceptualization; writing‐review & editing.

Conflicts of interest

None declared.

Supporting information

Figure S1. PRISMA (The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta Analyses) checklist.

Click here for additional data file. (63.5KB, doc)

Figure S2. PRISMA (The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta Analyses) diagram of national and international surgical society guidelines regarding the choice of open or laparoscopic surgery during the COVID‐19 pandemic.

Click here for additional data file. (36.7KB, docx)

Figure S3. PRISMA (The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta Analyses) diagram of studies examining viral emission in surgical aerosol.

Click here for additional data file. (34.6KB, docx)

Figure S4. PRISMA (The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta Analyses) diagram of studies comparing aerosol generation by different surgical instruments.

Click here for additional data file. (32.8KB, docx)

Table S1. Summary of national and international surgical society recommendations regarding the choice of open versus laparoscopic surgery during the COVID‐19 pandemic.

Click here for additional data file. (19.5KB, docx)

Table S2. Summary of national and international surgical society recommendations for safe surgery.

Click here for additional data file. (19.6KB, docx)

Table S3. AGREE II (Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation) appraisal of included national and international surgical society guidelines regarding the choice of open versus laparoscopic surgery during the COVID‐19 pandemic.

Click here for additional data file. (14.8KB, docx)

Table S4. Summary of studies examining viral emission in surgical aerosol.

Click here for additional data file. (16.2KB, docx)

Table S5. Johanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist for non‐randomized experimental studies for included studies examining viral emission in surgical aerosol.

Click here for additional data file. (15.1KB, docx)

Table S6. Summary of studies comparing aerosol production by different surgical instruments.

Click here for additional data file. (14.4KB, docx)

Table S7. Johanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist for non‐randomized experimental studies for included studies comparing the amount of aerosol generated by different surgical instruments.

Click here for additional data file. (13.7KB, docx)

Table S8. GRADE‐CERQual (Confidence in Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research) assessment of review findings.

Click here for additional data file. (25.8KB, docx)

S. Jacob BMed; A. Hameed MBBS, PhD; V. Lam DClinSurg, FRACS, FACS; T. C. Pang PhD, FRACS, FACS.

A poster presentation of the abstract was presented at the Surgical Research Society of Australasia November Annual Academic Surgery Conference 2020.

References

  • 1. Wang W, Xu Y, Gao R et al. Detection of SARS‐CoV‐2 in different types of clinical specimens. JAMA 2020; 323: 1843–4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2. Zhang H, Li H‐B, Lyu J‐R et al. Specific ACE2 expression in small intestinal enterocytes may cause gastrointestinal symptoms and injury after 2019‐nCoV infection. Int. J. Infect. Dis. 2020; 96: 19–24. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3. 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; 27: 789–91. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4. Centre for Reviews and Dissemination . PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews. 2011. [Cited 17 Nov 2020.] Available from URL: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/
  • 5. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG; The PRISMA Group . Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta‐analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ 2009; 339: b2535. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6. Brouwers MC, Kerkvliet K, Spithoff K; AGREE Next Steps Consortium . The AGREE Reporting Checklist: a tool to improve reporting of clinical practice guidelines. BMJ 2016; 352: i1152. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7. Joanna Briggs Institute . Checklist for Quasi‐Experimental Studies (Non‐randomized Experimental Studies). 2017. [Cited 17 Nov 2020.] Available from URL: https://jbi.global/sites/default/files/2020-08/Checklist_for_Quasi-Experimental_Appraisal_Tool.pdf
  • 8. GRADE‐CERQual . Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative Research. 2018. [Cited 17 Nov 2020.] Available from URL: https://www.cerqual.org
  • 9. RACS Australian Board in General Surgery, RACS New Zealand Board in General Surgery . COVID‐19 Guidelines for General Surgery. 2020. [Cited 17 Nov 2020.] Available from URL: https://www.generalsurgeons.com.au/media/files/News/DOC%202020-03-31%20COVID-19%20Guidelines%20for%20General%20Surgery_FINAL_UPDATED.pdf
  • 10. Canadian Association of General Surgeons . Statement from the Canadian Association of General Surgeons Minimally Invasive Surgery Committee Regarding Laparoscopy and the Risk of Aerosolization. 2020. [Cited 17 Nov 2020.] Available from URL: https://cags-accg.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/Laparoscopy-and-the-risk-of-aerosolization.pdf
  • 11. Coimbra R, Edwards S, Kurihara H et al. European Society of Trauma and Emergency Surgery (ESTES) recommendations for trauma and emergency surgery preparation during times of COVID‐19 infection. Eur. J. Trauma Emerg. Surg. 2020; 46: 505–10. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12. Francis N, Dort J, Cho E et al. SAGES and EAES recommendations regarding surgical response to COVID‐19 crisis. Surg. Endosc. 2020; 34: 2327–31. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13. Gallo G, La Torre M, Pietroletti R et al. Italian society of colorectal surgery recommendations for good clinical practice in colorectal surgery during the novel coronavirus pandemic. Tech. Coloproctol. 2020; 24: 501–5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14. Ramos RF, Lima DL, Benevenuto DS. Recommendations of the Brazilian College of Surgeons for laparoscopic surgery during the COVID‐19 pandemic. Rev. Col. Bras. Cir. 2020; 47: e20202570. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15. Association of Laparoscopic Surgeons of Great Britain and Ireland . Laparoscopy in the Covid‐19 Environment – ALSGBI Position Statement. 2020. [Cited 17 Nov 2020.] Available from URL: https://www.alsgbi.org/2020/04/22/laparoscopy-in-the-covid-19-environment-alsgbi-position-statement/
  • 16. Aranda‐Narvaez JM, Tallon‐Aguilar L, Pareja‐Ciuro F et al. Emergency surgery and trauma care during COVID‐19 pandemic. Recommendations of the Spanish Association of Surgeons. Cir. Esp. 2020; 98: 433–41. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17. Shabbir A, Menon RK, Somani J et al. ELSA recommendations for minimally invasive surgery during a community spread pandemic: a centered approach in Asia from widespread to recovery phases. Surg. Endosc. 2020; 34: 3292–7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18. Somashekhar SP, Shivaram HV, Abhaham SJ et al. ASI's consensus guidelines: ABCs of what to do and what not during the COVID‐19 pandemic. Indian J. Surg. 2020; 9: 1–11. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19. Royal College of Surgeons of England . Updated Intercollegiate General Surgery Guidance on COVID‐19. 2020. [Cited 17 Nov 2020.] Available from URL: https://www.rcseng.ac.uk/coronavirus/joint-guidance-for-surgeons-v2/
  • 20. Royal Australasian College of Surgeons . Guidelines for Safe Surgery: Open Versus Laparoscopic. 2020. [Cited 17 Nov 2020.] Available from URL: https://www.surgeons.org/-/media/Project/RACS/surgeons-org/files/news/covid19-information-hub/2020-04-15-recommendations-on-safe-surgery-laparoscopic-vs-open.pdf?rev=9f8f4faa7af243ccbd541b22b3efe27d&hash=CE951688EEC4654CFE59C02132CF5C3A
  • 21. Saftoiu A, Tomalescu V, Tantau M et al. SRED‐ARCE recommendations for minimally invasive interventions during the COVID‐19 pandemic in Romania. Chirurgia 2020; 115: 289–306. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22. Yip HC, Chiu P, Hassan C, Antonelli G, Sharma P. ISDE guidance statement management of upper‐GI endoscopy and surgery in COVID‐19 outbreak. Dis. Esophagus 2020; 33: doaa029. [Google Scholar]
  • 23. Garden JM, O'Banion MK, Shelnitz LS et al. Papillomavirus in the vapor of carbon dioxide laser‐treated verrucae. JAMA 1998; 59: 1199–202. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24. Ferenczy A, Bergeron C, Richart RM. Human papillomavirus DNA in CO2 laser‐generated plume of smoke and its consequences to the surgeon. Obstet. Gynecol. 1990; 75: 114–8. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25. Andre P, Orth G, Evenou P, Guillaume JC, Avril AF. Risk of papillomavirus infection in carbon dioxide laser treatment of genital lesions. J. Am. Acad. Dermatol. 1990; 22: 131–2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26. Sood AK, Bahrani‐Mostafavi Z, Stoerker J, Stone IK. Human papillomavirus DNA in LEEP plume. Infect. Dis. Obstet. Gynecol. 1994; 2: 167–70. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27. Hughes PS, Hughes AP. Absence of human papillomavirus DNA in the plume of erbium:YAG laser‐treated warts. J. Am. Acad. Dermatol. 1998; 38: 426–8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28. Sawchuk WS, Weber PJ, Lowy DR, Dzubow LM. Infectious papillomavirus in the vapor of warts treated with carbon dioxide laser or electrocoagulation: detection and protection. J. Am. Acad. Dermatol. 1989; 21: 41–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29. Weyandt GH, Tollmann F, Kristen P, Weissbrich B. Low risk of contamination with human papilloma virus during treatment of condylomata acuminata with multilayer argon plasma coagulation and CO₂ laser ablation. Arch. Dermatol. Res. 2011; 303: 141–4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30. Kwak HD, Kim S‐H, Seo YS, Song K‐J. Detecting hepatitis B virus in surgical smoke emitted during laparoscopic surgery. Occup. Environ. Med. 2016; 73: 857–63. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31. Neumann K, Cavalar M, Rody A, Freimert L, Beyers DA. Is surgical plume developing during routine LEEPs contaminated with high‐risk HPV? A pilot series of experiments. Arch. Gynecol. Obstet. 2018; 297: 421–4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32. Zhou Q, Hu X, Zhou J, Zhoa M, Zhu X, Zhu X. Human papillomavirus DNA in surgical smoke during cervical loop electrosurgical excision procedures and its impact on the surgeon. Cancer Manag. Res. 2019; 11: 3643–54. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33. 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: 337–42. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34. Weld KJ, Dryer S, Ames CD et al. Analysis of surgical smoke produced by various energy‐based instruments and effect on laparoscopic visibility. J. Endourol. 2007; 21: 347–51. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35. Choi C, Do I‐G, Song T. Ultrasonic versus monopolar energy‐based surgical devices in terms of surgical smoke and lateral thermal damage (ULMOST): a randomized controlled trial. Surg. Endosc. 2018; 32: 4415–21. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36. Kim FJ, Sehrt D, Pompeo A, Molina WR. Comparison of surgical plume among laparoscopic ultrasonic dissectors using a real‐time digital quantitative technology. Surg. Endosc. 2012; 26: 3408–12. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37. Agrawal V, Sharma D. Frugal solutions for the operating room during the COVID‐19 pandemic. Br. J. Surg. 2020; 107: e331–2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38. Mowbray NG, Ansell J, Horwood J et al. Safe management of surgical smoke in the age of COVID‐19. Br. J. Surg. 2020; 107: 1406–13. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39. Tivey DR, Davis SS, Kovoor JG et al. Safe surgery during the coronavirus disease 2019 crisis. ANZ J. Surg. 2020; 90: 1553–7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40. Yu GY, Lou Z, Zhang W. Several suggestion of operation for colorectal cancer under the outbreak of corona virus disease 19 in China. Zhonghua Wei Chang Wai Ke Za Zhi 2020; 23: 9–11. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41. Elliott JA, Kenyon R, Kelliher G, Gillis AE, Tierney S, Ridgway PF. Nosocomial SARS‐CoV‐2 transmission in postoperative infection and mortality: analysis of 14 798 procedures. Br. J. Surg. 2020; 107: 1708–12. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42. 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; 24: 1686–91. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43. COVIDSurg Collaborative . Mortality and pulmonary complications in patients undergoing surgery with perioperative SARS‐CoV‐2 infection: an international cohort study. Lancet 2020; 396: 27–38. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44. Johnson GK, Robinson WS. Human immunodeficiency virus‐1 (HIV‐1) in the vapors of surgical power instruments. J. Med. Virol. 1991; 33: 47–50. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45. Liu Y, Song Y, Hu X, Yan L, Zhu X. Awareness of surgical smoke hazards and enhancement of surgical smoke prevention among the gynecologists. J. Cancer 2019; 10: 2788–99. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46. Vourtzoumis P, Alkhamesi N, Elnahas A, Hawel JE, Schlachta C. Operating during COVID‐19: is there a risk of viral transmission from surgical smoke during surgery? Can. J. Surg. 2020; 63: E299–301. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47. Alp E, Bijl D, Bleichrodt RP, Voss A. Surgical smoke and infection control. J. Hosp. Infect. 2006; 62: 1–5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48. Alonso C, Raynor PC, Davies PR, Torremorell M. Concentration, size distribution, and infectivity of airborne particles carrying swine viruses. PLoS One 2015; 10: e0135675. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49. Eubanks S, Newman L, Lucas G. Reduction of HIV transmission during laparoscopic procedures. Surg. Laparosc. Endosc. 1993; 3: 2–5. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50. Hensman C, Baty D, Willis RG, Cuschieri A. Chemical composition of smoke produced by high‐frequency electrosurgery in a closed gaseous environment. An in vitro study. Surg. Endosc. 1998; 12: 1017–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51. Liu Z, Zhang Y, Wang X et al. Recommendations for surgery during the novel coronavirus (COVID‐19) epidemic. Indian J. Surg. 2020; 82: 124–8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52. Fry DE. Reduction of HIV transmission during laparoscopic procedures. Surg. Laparosc. Endosc. 1993; 3: 1. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53. Chang L, Yan Y, Wang L. Coronavirus disease 2019: coronaviruses and blood safety. Transfus. Med. Rev. 2020; 34: 75–80. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54. Stephenson D, Allcott D, Koch M. The presence of p22 bacteriophage in electrocautery aerosols. National Occupational Research Agenda Symposium. 2004. [Cited 18 Nov 2020.] Available from URL: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/242419093_THE_PRESENCE_OF_P22_BACTERIOPHAGE_IN_ELECTROCAUTERY_AEROSOLS
  • 55. Farmer WM, Nataupsky M, Gorochovskaya R, Ivy JT, Sizemore MK, Phillips JL. Identification of Aerosol Production During Surgical Procedures. 1994. [Cited 18 Nov 2020.] Available from URL: https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/nioshtic-2/00229128.html
  • 56. Mellor G, Hutchinson M. Is it time for a more systematic approach to the hazards of surgical smoke?: reconsidering the evidence. Workplace Health Saf. 2013; 61: 265–70. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57. Schultz L. Can efficient smoke evacuation limit aerosolization of bacteria? AORN J. 2015; 102: 7–14. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

Figure S1. PRISMA (The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta Analyses) checklist.

Click here for additional data file. (63.5KB, doc)

Figure S2. PRISMA (The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta Analyses) diagram of national and international surgical society guidelines regarding the choice of open or laparoscopic surgery during the COVID‐19 pandemic.

Click here for additional data file. (36.7KB, docx)

Figure S3. PRISMA (The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta Analyses) diagram of studies examining viral emission in surgical aerosol.

Click here for additional data file. (34.6KB, docx)

Figure S4. PRISMA (The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta Analyses) diagram of studies comparing aerosol generation by different surgical instruments.

Click here for additional data file. (32.8KB, docx)

Table S1. Summary of national and international surgical society recommendations regarding the choice of open versus laparoscopic surgery during the COVID‐19 pandemic.

Click here for additional data file. (19.5KB, docx)

Table S2. Summary of national and international surgical society recommendations for safe surgery.

Click here for additional data file. (19.6KB, docx)

Table S3. AGREE II (Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation) appraisal of included national and international surgical society guidelines regarding the choice of open versus laparoscopic surgery during the COVID‐19 pandemic.

Click here for additional data file. (14.8KB, docx)

Table S4. Summary of studies examining viral emission in surgical aerosol.

Click here for additional data file. (16.2KB, docx)

Table S5. Johanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist for non‐randomized experimental studies for included studies examining viral emission in surgical aerosol.

Click here for additional data file. (15.1KB, docx)

Table S6. Summary of studies comparing aerosol production by different surgical instruments.

Click here for additional data file. (14.4KB, docx)

Table S7. Johanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist for non‐randomized experimental studies for included studies comparing the amount of aerosol generated by different surgical instruments.

Click here for additional data file. (13.7KB, docx)

Table S8. GRADE‐CERQual (Confidence in Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research) assessment of review findings.

Click here for additional data file. (25.8KB, docx)

Articles from Anz Journal of Surgery are provided here courtesy of Wiley

RESOURCES